Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

RAW MATERIAL SUPPLIES

11.5 a.m.

Mr. Summers: I do not think I need spend much time emphasising the vital importance of the subject to which I wish to draw the attention of the House this morning, namely, the supply of raw materials. Suffice it to say that upon adequate supplies of raw materials depends the whole of our rearmament programme, and, probably, our foreign policy, and, through both, the preservation of peace. The situation has already been prominent in the national Press, and I want, in the limited time that I propose to take, to deal with just three aspects of it—the present position and the prospects, the responsibilities of the Government in this matter, and certain steps which I suggest are indispensable in order to provide some improvement in the situation.
Taking, first, the present position, notably as it applies to metal, a good deal of information was given by the Minister of Supply in reply to a Question on 7th December. In that reply, he told us that, as far as zinc was concerned, in the first quarter of next year the supply was not likely to be more than 50 per cent. of the quantity of zinc used on the average in the first nine months of 1950. To reinforce the concern with which this situation is regarded, I should like to quote a brief extract from a letter I have received from a manufacturer who is prominent in this business. He says:
My principals, the most efficient zinc oxide manufacturers in the country, have notified me that they must close their works next week as they have no more zinc left. I am the largest supplier to the drug and chemical industry, and surgical dressing manufacturers and allied trades, and it means that ere long these industries will be without zinc oxide, for which there is no substitute.
I turn now to copper, and in that commodity, early next year, a cut of no less

than 10 per cent. is expected, quite apart from the very serious situation which is arising in the special shapes which apply particularly to certain industries. In aluminium, there will be a cut of 12½ per cent. next year, and we are told that there is no prospect of any increase in the supply of nickel.
Turning to the raw materials that affect steel, there is at present considerable concern, to put it no higher, over the situation in Europe in this respect, as compared to the conditions prevailing before the war. Nowadays, the United States are taking three times the quantity of iron ore from Europe which they did before the war, and, whereas they were normal exporters of scrap to Europe, they are now importers of scrap from Europe, and this change in the situation is undoubtedly causing a great increase in the pressure for the supply of the limited raw materials available in Europe for that purpose.
Probably even more serious than that is the doubt cast on the supply of coke during next year. In the debate the other day, we heard a good deal about the coal situation, and I hope hon. Members will appreciate that it is on the coal trade that steel production depends, in so far as coke is an indispensable factor in maintaining the production of that industry. As a result of the emergency arrangements which necessarily have had to be made regarding coal, there has been greatly increased pressure on shipping, which affects the situation, not only as regards tonnage, but in the drastic effect which it has on the freight rates that are prevailing.
Turning now to the question of chemicals, the position in regard to sulphur is extremely serious indeed. We are told that next year there may be a cut of anything from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. in the supplies likely to be available.
I do not propose to say anything in detail about cotton but, if he is forunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, one of my hon. Friends will have something to say on that subject. In a reply to a Question yesterday, the indications were that next year the supply of American raw cotton would be one-third of that to which we have been accustomed and, surprisingly enough, only one-third of the supplies which are to be sent to Japan from the United States of America.
There are other materials less well known, which also give rise to concern—molybdenum, cobalt, tungsten and columbium—and in the chemical industries there is a series of key products the names of which I find the utmost difficulty in pronouncing—and which I have no intention of trying to pronounce this morning. There are hon. Members who are, I know, very knowledgeable on that side of the subject and I hope they may have a chance to inform the House of the very serious situation in a number of these key products, the quantity of which may not be very large but which are quite indispensable to many of the important aspects of our rearmament programme.
If the situation is already causing widespread concern at the initial stages of our rearmament programme, how much more concern ought we to have as the rearmament programme develops? Where are the raw materials to come from for that programme if there are not even enough to go round at present? To what is this position due? It is difficult to generalise, with so many materials under review, and any generalisation may not be applicable to any particular one of them, but there are certain generalities which, I think, it is safe to say apply in most cases.
I think the position has unquestionably been aggravated by the failure of the Government to do their duty in strategic planning and, by concentrating on interfering with the machinery of procurement, they have denied to others the opportunity of dealing with the matter for themselves. Secondly, by giving an unnecessary predominance to the price aspect they have diminished the quantity of materials which otherwise could have been obtained. We had an instance of that in connection with timber when we saw how unreasonable regard for price alone, had resulted in far smaller quantities of timber being brought to this country than could have been obtained.
I think the Government's failure to tell manufacturers just what is expected of them has made it infinitely more difficult for firms to indulge in any form of self-help and to arrange things as best they could for themselves. Let no one imagine that this situation has arisen quite unexpectedly and that no warnings were

given from this side of the House of what might be expected. We had a debate on defence on 26th July, and I think it is relevant to quote an extract from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) who spoke on that occasion. After reviewing the situation he said:
I am forced to the conclusion that our position today"—
that is, in the matter of raw materials—
is incomparably worse than that in 1939.

ROYAL ASSENT

11.15 a.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1950.
2. Superannuation Act, 1950.
3. Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1950.
4. Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1950.
5. Public Works Loans Act, 1950.
6. Solicitors Act, 1950.
7. Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1950.
8. European Payments Union (Financial Provisions) Act, 1950.
9. Restoration of Pre-War Trade Practices Act, 1950.
10. Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1950.
11. Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act, 1950.
12. Kirkcaldy Burgh Extension, etc., Order Confirmation Act, 1950.
13. Glasgow Corporation Sewage Order Confirmation Act, 1950.
14. Ross and Cromarty County Council (Kyle of Lochalsh Fishery Pier) Order Confirmation Act, 1950.
15. Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Order Confirmation Act, 1950.
16. Inverness County Council (Armadale Pier and Harbour, &amp;c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1950.

RAW MATERIAL SUPPLIES

Question again proposed "That this House do now adjourn."

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Summers: I was drawing the attention of the House to the very grave warning given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe as far back as 26th July last, which I should like to quote to the House. After reviewing the situation as he saw it in respect of raw materials, he said:
I am forced to the conclusion that our position today is incomparably worse than that in 1939. We are consuming almost double the rate of raw materials—not quite so much in food—that we did in 1939, and yet our stocks of at least a considerable number of these raw materials are not equal to those of 1939.
He went on to say later:
I want to be reassured that some plan is being worked out so that we can obtain and deny to others, if that can be done without going too far with sanctions, those materials without which in war-time armies sooner or later come to a stop."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 608 and 609.]
That was in July.
I want to read to the House the corresponding opinion expressed by the Prime Minister on 12th September—the occasion when the House was given the details of the large rearmament programme which had recently been announced to the country. This is what he said:
As to raw materials, it is not considered that there should be any serious shortages, but I would make a special appeal to all concerned in industry not"—
I should like to emphasise the word "not"—
to increase their stocks beyond their actual needs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th September, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 968.]
On the following day the Chancellor said very much the same thing.
Was ever facile optimism more misplaced? In the face of the position which I described earlier, how can anyone have any confidence in those who are responsible for our affairs, if within three months the forecast of our difficulties is so completely nullified by the events with which we are all familiar at the present time? Not only did they then announce that they did not themselves intend to do anything about the future of raw materials,

but they said it would be wrong if anyone else attempted to do so instead.
There is a tendency in some quarters to attribute our position to the stockpiling policy which has been prevalent in America. I say quite emphatically that if in this country the Prime Minister makes plain that there are no difficulties, why should we blame any other country which takes a contrary view and follows its own methods for providing itself with adequate supplies of raw materials? The war in Korea started in June; Parliament was summoned in September to discuss rearmament plans decided upon in August. Yet, so far as I am aware, before November, if not indeed December, little or nothing effective seems to have been done to make provision for an orderly apportionment of key materials.
On the international side, here again it is not as though warnings had not been given. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), speaking in this House on 18th September, said:
The time seems long overdue in many cases when we should set up some kind of clearing house or combined resources board amongst the rearming countries to prevent a scramble for scarce supplies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th September, 1950; Vol. 478. c. 1560.]
Yet apparently no notice until very recently has been taken of these quite precise warnings that have been given. The Government stand condemned of the total absence of foresight in this matter. The position would not have been anything like as serious as we now find it to be, if they had taken adequate steps earlier to deal with it.
I am well aware in recommending international planning in this sphere, that the conditions are not the same as those which prevailed during the war; and it is not to be expected, even when such machinery as seems necessary is set up, that there will be the same effectiveness resulting from it. During the war the ability to bring into operation the Navicerts in the matter of shipping, was an immense reinforcement—indeed, possibly an indispensable reinforcement—to the plans of those who were dealing with the subject of combined resources. Nevertheless, in spite of the absence of that advantage which then existed, I think that an attempt must certainly be made. The position will not right itself, and as


rearmament grows, there is no doubt that this problem will correspondingly increase.
Since the situation has got so bad, it may be found necessary to introduce a measure of control of scarce raw materials. But, wherever possible, let such arrangements be administered by those in industry who are familiar with the facts, and let those arrangements be as flexible as they can possibly be made. First of all, before that is deemed necessary, I beg the Government to look at this problem as one of the utmost urgency on an international plane. I beg them to treat the matter as one of the highest urgency and importance. If they fall down again on this responsibility, no efforts from industry and no sacrifices from civilians will make good the damage they will thereby do to the safety and well-being of the people of this country.

11.38 a.m.

Mr. Yates: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) has raised a most vital matter, and it is right that it should be raised. Where I think he has failed is not in calling attention to the very serious difficulties that exist, but in his attempts to assess the responsibility for those difficulties. I was interested when he said that the Government had failed to do their duty in strategic planning. This Government has not been in power very long. I can remember the General Election, which is not so very far back, when the Tories were fighting against all the planning and control which we on these benches have maintained are so vital and necessary.
When the hon. Member for Aylesbury used the words "if it is necessary to have a measure of control" it indicated to me that he had not understood what vital control really is necessary. Still, he is coming along a good way, and our American friends are also realising the necessity for control. I do not know whether the hon. Member read an article in the "New York Times" of 10th December, in which these words appeared:
Scarce raw materials pose complex problem. U.S. and Britain agree on a system of allocations and controls.
This article was written by Felix Belair on 10th December, and it was special to the "New York Times." He referred to

the scramble for commodities that has been going on more or less intensively since the invasion of South Korea.
Therefore, it seems to me to be absurd to talk of something having gone on over a long period, when, in fact, it has come about very recently.

Mr. Summers: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that he is quoting complete confirmation of the view which I expressed, that five months ago the scramble was beginning and only now is anything being done about it?

Mr. Yates: An intensive struggle has obviously been going on in the last few weeks. The point is that we on this side of the House have always maintained that we must have certain controls, but the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and his supporters have said, "Set the people free." Their demands, all the time, are for us to take away controls, and now we are getting the suggestion from America that to make raw material controls work effectively they must be accompanied by a whole set of subsidiary controls on foreign trade and the internal economy.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman in the development of this argument. I would remind him that conditions in war or near-war are entirely different from those which obtain in peace time. That will perhaps help him in the argument.

Mr. Yates: I agree that when we are at war or approaching war, they are somewhat different. I understand that hon. Members opposite are prepared to agree to a measure of strategic planning only when there is either a war or the prospects of a war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense"] Therefore, we have been asking that there should be control.
I want to dwell upon the discussion of this matter which is so vital to a city like Birmingham, to the whole of the Midlands and, indeed, to the economy of the country, and I want to pose one or two questions to my hon. Friend on this matter. I put a Question to the Minister a few days ago in which I asked whether it was necessary to introduce a system of allocation to firms so that manufacturers would be given adequate notice in which to plan. Manufacturers are faced with a grave situation of possibly having to close


their factories entirely. That is a serious matter to which I ask the Government to Pay the most serious attention.
I received a telegram the other day:
If unable to obtain supplies of Mazak zinc alloy for manufacture of motor car components immediately, will require to give notice to 250 employees.
This was a very serious matter, and I at once went to the Minister and told him that in the City of Birmingham, in a constituency which is the centre of a very large number of large and small factories, it would be a very serious situation if a factory must close. I am very grateful to him for looking into this matter, for within 24 hours he was able to introduce a system of special allocation to enable the Imperial Smelting Corporation to make an allocation to all their customers so that for the month of December they would be all right. All these firms were very grateful for that action. Never let it be said that the Civil Service cannot work within 24 hours, because they can. We have to try to get these matters dealt with quickly.
I would remind the Minister that if a factory has to close down, even for a limited period, it is a very serious matter. In this particular case, it meant that, unless some action was taken, the factory would have to close down until March. If that happens, a firm loses its team of valuable skilled men, and that, of course, is a serious matter. I went over this factory a few days ago, and I realised that if it suddenly had to close down, the manufacturer would lose some of the most skilled men in the tool room and probably would not be able to get them back. Therefore, I ask the Minister to say that there shall be some system so that factories will not be brought to a close, and that if there has to be rationing, it will be done on a very careful basis so that firms will be safeguarded.
I have another telegram here, which I received last night.
Second galvanising pot stopped today through shortage of zinc. Three others closing next week unless supplies are forthcoming. Thirty-two tons of zinc on order. No promise obtainable.
This, of course, is very serious, and I trust that some action will be taken, and that it will not be necessary for such a situation to arise again.
There are firms in my constituency and in the City of Birmingham which, for some time, have had difficulties about materials, and I am not sure whether the Ministry of Supply are entirely responsible. I do not understand how some of these very large firms work. It seems to me that some of the smaller firms have great difficulty in obtaining adequate supplies from the larger firms. Whether the Minister of Supply can control that, without taking over all the firms, which would be considered a most revolutionary action, I do not know. If we want freedom for private enterprise, then surely one has to place some responsibility upon the manufacturers.
There is a firm in my constituency—the Speedwell Gear Case Company, Ltd.—which my hon. Friends who represent Coventry may know, and which is supplying a considerable number of gear cases for the Coventry cycle industry and industries in Birmingham. They find themselves in very serious difficulty at times. In fact we hear a lot about Coventry, but Coventry cannot exist without help from Birmingham, and this firm informed me that supplies of tinplate, for example, are very difficult to get. I put the matter to the Minister the other day by letter, and he took action to see whether he could put this firm in touch with a larger firm. Eventually, after the firm had been in anxiety for a considerable time, some action was taken, and the amount of tinplate supply was actually doubled.
I think that if a large firm can suddenly double its supply of tinplate, there is some room for thought and for consideration of whether better arrangements could not be made. With regard to this firm, I went into the office of the general manager and I was shown a number of orders from Malaya, India and Pakistan which, I was told, could not be met. The work which was being done there was very important to the dollar market. I think it is necessary that considerable thought should be given to these difficulties.
Another point which has been put to me is that there is developing a black market in this country for some of these materials. I should like my hon. Friend to look into this also. May I ask him one other question? A firm wrote to me and said:


We hear that nickel anodes are being exported to America, who already control large nickel resources, and therefore it seems remarkable to us that this Government should export material to America which is in short supply and at the same time place their own workpeople in danger of unemployment.
I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm whether that is so. I ask him to bear in mind the fact that there will have to be strict controls if our economy is to be safeguarded. I have letters from firms in Birmingham asking for controls. I should never have thought that there would be requests from firms for the reintroduction of controls. One firm states:
We have an ammunition contract at the moment which has been lying here about six weeks, but all our steel people will promise is that they will try to deliver the necessary steel strip sometime in May or June next. If by bringing back controls industry will get deliveries of steel within a reasonable time for the jobs for which it is most urgently required, then I say, for the Lord's sake, much as we hate controls, let us have them back.
That is a remarkable development, Another firm states:
For the last six months we have been experiencing difficulties in obtaining adequate supplies of material, particularly board, and although these facts been brought to the notice of the Board of Trade, they have been unable to assist us in any way owing to the absence of controls.
Therefore, I say that we must have controls. We have not had a comparable situation in Birmingham during the last five years, during which time, unprecedented in its history, Birmingham has had full employment. It is a surprise to me that employers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries and manufacturers have not thought it necessary to meet their Members of Parliament to bring to their attention these vital matters which are only now coming out.

Sir Peter Bennett: Surely the hon. Member appreciates that the organisations to which he is referring have been attempting to get in touch with the Government Departments and that, rightly or wrongly, they thought that that was a more direct approach than going to Members of Parliament and asking them to approach the Minister of Supply? I can assure him that they have not allowed any grass to grow under their feet. As the Minister will confirm, all these facts have been brought to his attention by these organisations.

Mr. Yates: If the employers have been doing all this, they have not been very successful in their efforts.

Sir P. Bennett: I said that the employers' organisations have been doing it.

Mr. Yates: I should have thought that the Chamber of Commerce in Birmingham would have been the first people to know the difficulties that are being experienced in Birmingham, and that they would have taken the matter up, rather than that individual firms should have to approach their Members of Parliament. Members who represent Birmingham on this side of the House are meeting the Birmingham manufacturers in conjunction, I hope, with the Ministry of Supply. I am raising this question on behalf of the constituency I represent, which is a hive of industry in the centre of Birmingham. We want to maintain full employment, and I hope that the Government, by reintroducing controls will be able to help Birmingham to maintain full employment and to produce for the export market in ever-increasing quantities.

11.55 a.m.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: I am glad that the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) and I have succeeded in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, because industry in Birmingham, and in the Midlands generally, is facing its gravest production crisis since 1940, owing to shortages of raw materials, particularly of metals. I believe that the next two or three months will be critical, because many manufacturers are now producing from accumulated stocks which may be exhausted in the New Year. What is now at stake is nothing less than the country's essential supplies, production for rearmament and export, the maintenance of essential services and, as the hon. Member has pointed out, maintenance of full employment.
Zinc and zinc base alloys, copper, nonferrous metals generally, brass, aluminium and aluminium alloys, nickel and steel are all scarce and are getting scarcer. We also seem rapidly to be reaching the position that, if we had all the metals we require, we should not have the coke necessary to melt them. When we consider the optimistic statements made about coal production, at any rate until quite recently, we can only conclude that industry has been scandalously let down by


the Government. The situation today is extremely grave for engineering trades, brass founders, electro-platers, the cycle industry and a whole host of other trades.
I cannot accept the view of the hon. Member for Ladywood that we should not seek to put the blame on the Government for this situation, if only in order to seek more effective action in the future. I regard the Minister of Supply as one of the more enlightened of His Majesty's present Ministers. I have found him most accessible. He has a quick brain and usually an open mind. I have found it a pleasure to have negotiations with him. Therefore, I am all the more sorry that I cannot acquit him of grave responsibility for the present situation.
I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that it is now more than 15 months since the Non-Ferrous Metal Federation warned the Ministry of Supply that the country's stocks of zinc were dangerously low, to which the Ministry replied that they did not think so, and that in any case they thought prices would fall and they were holding their hand in order to take advantage of that situation. This view was not shared by the trade, and, as things have worked out, the trade has been proved right. Whatever we think about bulk buying, we are surely in agreement that it is its function to ensure the maintenance of supplies and not, as the Non-Ferrous Metal Control of the Ministry of Supply apparently thinks, to play the market. If the purpose is to play the market, surely it would be much better done at the Metal Exchanges, where people who are clever at this sort of thing can handle these matters better than people with less knowledge in the Ministry.
The consequence of this mishandling, coupled with American stockpiling, is that the country is short of supplies of zinc. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers), in what I thought was a very striking speech, mentioned the astonishing complacency of the Prime Minister who, in his statement last September, said that there was nothing to worry about in regard to the supplies of our raw materials. We all know that the Prime Minister got his information from the Minister of Supply. Not only that, but the Minister of Supply himself stated, on 25th August, that there

were ample stocks of copper, lead and zinc.
It is all very well to blame American stockpiling—and I agree that it has been on a very heavy scale—but this country could perfectly well have obtained a large share of the world's supplies had less complacency been shown, and had a more imaginative and vigorous policy of purchasing been adopted, such as private enterprise would have used. Industry would not then have been in so grave a plight as it is today. We have to consider what the situation is at the moment. It is perfectly clear, from the Minister's statements and from correspondence I have had with the Parliamentary Secretary, that there is no immediate prospect of supplies improving.
In those circumstances, we shall, of course, have to accept some form of rationing system. I can only trust that the Government will permit whatever controls have to be imposed to be operated by the various trade associations in conjunction with the Ministry of Supply, rather than that they should be operated by men in the Ministry with less knowledge. I am particularly concerned with the position of the medium and small manufacturers, because when there are shortages and difficulties, it is much harder for the small manufacturer to get fair treatment, and I am sure that the trade associations are more likely to see that they get their fair share.
In conclusion. I would say that the Government have the main responsibility for ensuring that we get a greater share of world supplies. The Government must also keep industry very much better informed than they have done up to now about the true position, so that industry can plan its production ahead. In particular, the Government's plans for the gearing of industry for rearmament are most anxiously awaited by industry all over the country.

12.2 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: Among the many phrases which have been doing double. or even triple, duty lately there is one very well known in modern politics—"over-all planning." I think that it is very often used rather vaguely, but if there was an occasion for over-all planning, this is surely it. The answer to the hon. Member for Lady-


wood (Mr. Yates) is that what are now required are not so much detailed controls, but an over-all international plan for the production and allocation of vital raw materials.
Now, this situation arises from the present state of the world. Yesterday we had a debate on that situation. Some of us, myself included, do not feel that we should consider ourselves in a state of war with Russia. Many of us do not feel that rearmament alone will guarantee peace. But whatever our views on foreign affairs, we must realise, as a Member of the United Nations, that at the moment we are at war in Korea and in China, and the whole situation we are debating today flows from the fact of war or the threat of war. Those of us who may disagree on foreign policy can be agreed on the very great urgency of ensuring for this country adequate materials for rearmament, and ensuring that those materials are guaranteed to us before they become available to potential aggressors. I say this without in the least abandoning the position that we should make every possible effort to maintain peace.
My own feeling is that the most vital materials we are concerned with today are comparatively small in number—those that contribute directly to rearmament. I think they are generally considered to be certain materials used for the hardening of steel, rubber, oil and, nowadays, atomic substances. It is on those materials especially, that I intend to address a few remarks to the House. In doing so, I am by no means under-estimating the seriousness of the effects of those matters to which the hon. Member for Ladywood, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) have drawn attention, but it is these particular metals and other substances, to which I want to draw attention.
With our Commonwealth and the United States of America we control a very large proportion of these supplies, and in the past we have had considerable experience in dealing with these metals and these substances in a war situation. I hope we shall not repeat the mistakes, but will have learned the lessons of the situation which existed before the last war. It is common knowledge, I think, that at that time we went on supplying Germany

with certain metals which were vital to her rearmament far beyond the time when it was obvious that it was dangerous to do so.
We must follow up what the Prime Minister said yesterday and ask what machinery is now being established to ensure that those countries which are or are likely to be aggressors, are rationed in their supplies of these materials. It was possible to ration their materials during the war, and the system could have been put into operation before the war. I think that we have a perfect right to introduce machinery which will guarantee that we, with our Allies and the other Members of the, United Nations who are co-operating with us, have the first call upon these materials. A rationing system should be introduced to guarantee only reasonable civilian needs to those nations which may break the peace, so that they can neither stockpile in these materials nor acquire sufficient quantities of them to pass on to actual aggressors.
Furthermore, we must have machinery which plans and controls—and I agree that the controls may have to be severe—the production of these substances, in the interests of ourselves and those who co-operate with us. If it is confined to a comparatively short list of materials, it should not be very difficult to make at any rate a start in setting up this machinery to guarantee us our supplies and to deny them to the aggressors. It has been reported that America has "black-listed" a British firm. If that is the case, it discloses an exceedingly serious position, and it is not one which we can accept. We must have international agreement on this subject. We cannot have one nation picking out a firm of another nation and saying it is to be denied access to the market.
There are many other materials which are actually in short supply, or are very likely to be in short supply, or whose price has reached such a height that the supply of them to many users is limited; and I think it is unfair to expect the Government to deal with the whole situation, at least with any rapidity. It is obviously a very difficult and a long-term matter. All I can say is that I think that there should be some joint international agreement on buying. I dare say also that the Government can help, as has


been suggested earlier in the debate, by allocating them within this country. But my main point is that for the few materials that are vital, we should at once set about introducing some machinery, of which we have had experience in the past, and which to my mind would prove invaluable.

12.9 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: I am glad that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has tried to put this debate into a better perspective by relating it to the world situation and to the existing threat of war. I rather feel that the two Opposition speakers, in their anxiety to attack the Government for their share, tended to belittle the importance of the present international situation in its effect upon the scarcity of these vital materials.
I think that at this time we ought to be concerned mainly with the equitable distribution of these commodities in two ways: first, between countries themselves; and secondly, between individual buyers and users in those countries. That would seem to make certain at this stage that there should be some effective international control of both buying and allocation, and some effective internal control of distribution, in order that our economic stability can be preserved, and so that we shall not have to face any large scale unemployment. If we are trying to create conditions in which all the difficulties of the future will be overcome, we have to do our utmost to prevent unemployment arising here.
There are already very disquieting signs that, although the rearmament policy has scarcely yet influenced production, the world-wide scramble for raw materials, competitive buying and the soaring of commodity prices are causing serious concern to industries at home, and particularly to the engineering industry. It seems evident that stock-piling by private industry and official stock-piling by governments have led in many cases to panic buying of these materials in an unco-ordinated and a competitive way. Government intervention at this stage is essential if we are to maintain our economy and prevent unemployment.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers), who opened the debate, rather

thought that we had given unreasonable attention to prices, and that as we were not willing to buy certain commodities at certain prices, we were deprived from getting those metals. If that is so and if we are to put the whole of our buying into private hands and allow them to bid up and pay any price, I am very doubtful if we could have got any more materials, because there is only one country in the world which can carry out that policy, and that is the United States of America. With their unlimited wealth, the Americans could outbid us all along the line, and we should not get any benefit by letting private enterprise bid up as it would want to.
One of the major causes of the difficulties today is American stock-piling. It seems that if they are going to build up their stock-piles for strategic needs, they must not be blind to the significance that this action will have upon their Allies and upon the democratic world as a whole. By their present method of buying these necessary materials, they are automatically interfering with the needs of armament production in this and other countries, and more important than that, because of this policy there might very well come a time when there would be a weakening of morale and of the economic strength of the democracies, which is as important as is military strength at a time like this.
"The Times" of 30th October has this to say about it:
If American stock-piling is liable to create difficulty for other countries' industry and already make it impossible for them to build up their own stocks even to reasonable levels, it is time for an international review of Government policies in commodity markets.
It seems to me that that process is now bearing fruit. It has taken two months to work its way through, but in O.E.E.C., in Washington, and at home we are going ahead with what we hope will be effective international control of buying and allocating these scarce metals.
I want in particular to deal with the iron and steel position. I represent a Teesside constituency, and it is vital to our livelihood that there should be an efficient production of iron and steel just as it is vital to the whole of our economy. There is great anxiety about the future level of production, and this does not arise from a lack of capacity but through possible


shortages of raw materials. One of the facts of the present high record output of steel, for which we are all very grateful without going into the reasons for it, has been an increased supply of scrap which we have been able to get from Germany and also from the home scrap trade. It seems true that Germany can no longer be relied upon as a possible source of scrap in any great measure, because first of all they are using large quantities themselves in their own steel industry.
There is an increased demand from the United States to buy German scrap, and it is more than likely that our imports from Germany may fall by half. That means that we have to get from half a million to three-quarters of a million tons from other sources next year. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply could give us some indication of the prospect of obtaining that additional scrap from other sources.
We could get it from a more speedy return of scrap back to the steel works, and something from the breaking up of ships. I do not know what prospects there are, but there has been no export of ships for breaking-up purposes and I hope we shall not resume exports. It seems again that we cannot expect to get increased iron ore from Sweden to make up the deficiency from scrap, because they are reluctant to let us have iron ore without coal in return. We must have a large-scale drive at home to maintain our scrap supplies if we are to keep up the large output or iron and steel.
There is no complacency in the industry itself, and I do not think the Government, judging from the statement they made last week, are unaware of the difficulties either, but I should like to issue a warning, because this is bound to be used later on by the Opposition if there should be a falling off in steel production next year through lack of raw materials. If that should happen, I hope they will not try to lay it at the door of nationalisation. I pointed this out two years ago when I spoke on the Third Reading of the Iron and Steel Act. I said that it was most likely that we should have great difficulty in maintaining this level of production, because of coke and scrap supplies. I hope it will be understood that those difficulties, if there should be a falling

off, will be the cause of it, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not seek to make political capital out of it.

Mr. Summers: The hon. Gentleman, speaks of not laying at the door of, nationalisation the blame for any short fall in steel, but if it is attributable to the lack of coke, would it not be a perfectly valid criticism to blame that on the nationalisation of coal?

Mr. Chetwynd: No, I think it would be far more just to say that it would be a reflection of the increasing demand through full employment in this country, which has stretched our coke resources to the full. It is a remarkable thing that today as compared with before the war, we are facing a prospect of unemployment now when materials are scarce, whereas before the war we had unemployment with a plenitude of materials. It is another paradox that today it is going to take the possibility of a war to create unemployment, whereas before the war it was the possibility of war coming along which made unemployment less extensive and brought about a measure of full employment.
The other point I wish to deal with is the position of certain small firms, such as constructional firms and so on. At the moment the steel makers are swamped with orders for all rolled steel products. I believe that the works are fully booked up for nine or 12 months, and I should like, to ask my hon. Friend if there is any indication that this rush to buy is showing any signs of falling off at the present time.
It is quite clear that the small firms do not deal direct with the works but through the stock holders, and they cannot plan ahead for nine to 12 months because of the tremendous fluctuation in their demand and supplies. Although they get help from Government Departments and from the Regional Board for Industry; there is really very little the Government or the Regional Board can do whilst this mad scramble to build up stocks in anticipation of future need is going on.
I ask my hon. Friend two questions. Is he considering whether there can be a reimpositon of the control of steel distribution on those items from which it was removed some time ago? Is that a practical possibility at the present time? Secondly, would he bear in mind the exceptional


needs of firms in development areas whose employment is so vital in those parts? I could deal with sulphur, but that was dealt with at Question time yesterday and is more the concern of the Board of Trade.
Finally, I should like to make these two points. It is essential, if we are to get over this problem, that we should not only deal with ad hoc measures to give emergency relief. That can be done, but it means all the time robbing Peter to pay Paul. We must have an overall strategic concept, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give more information about the joint talks which have been taking place with the United States. Above all, it is essential that we should bring in all the O.E.E.C. countries and the Commonwealth also—we cannot settle this just between ourselves and the United States. I hope that the two problems of buying internationally and of allocations at home once we have obtained the materials, will be dealt with effectively and swiftly by my hon. Friend.

12.21 p.m.

Mr. Fort: I should like to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) about international arrangements for overcoming the shortages of raw materials. But in the very short time available on this subject, I shall not do so, because those solutions or assistances in our present difficulties, are of a long-term nature, I shall confine myself to asking for information about what can be done in the short-term future. I shall, however, follow the hon. Member in one matter, in an industry other than iron and steel, to let the House know that in Lancashire there is a real fear of unemployment owing to the shortage of American raw cotton. Before the war, about 40 per cent. of all the raw cotton consumed in Lancashire came from the United States. Today, the percentage is still considerable—well over 20 per cent.
The present shortage is, perhaps, in part due to American stock-piling, although that is certainly not the major factor. The shortage has been caused without any doubt by some very curious planning—or, as I think the Americans prefer to call it, programming—by the United States Department of Agriculture, who in the last growing season persuaded

the farmers to reduce the cotton area in the cotton States by about 60 per cent. because of the heavy carry-over of raw cotton from the previous season. Like other planners, however, they did not forecast the future, including the extraordinary marked rise in American raw cotton consumption, nor did they foretell—they cannot be blamed for this—the Korean war, which has unquestionably added greatly to the difficulties.
In consequence of the small American crop, the United States Government have cut the total export allocations. The President of the Board of Trade gave information about this yesterday and he reminded the House that not only has the total American export allocation been cut, but, what is particularly severe on this country—one might say, almost insulting—is that our share of the total allocation is very much lower than that of our former enemies—Japan, Western Germany and Italy.
In that connection I smiled at the supplementary question asked yesterday by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who quite properly drew the attention of his right hon. Friend to this situation. Of course, the party opposite have committed themselves to trying to help these poorer countries, even at the expense of our own, but when there is an early opportunity of putting that policy into action, I am glad to say that they speak here as Englishmen, and not in their general woolly international way.
The hope for additional allocations to this country is based on the fact that 600,000 bales are still unallocated. I ask the hon. Gentleman who is to reply, as I asked the President of the Board of Trade yesterday, whether he can give any information at all about what indications there are from the American Government of the extra number of bales which we can get from this unallocated quantity.
I hope we shall not hear too much in the reply about the way that the Raw Cotton Commission are supplying Lancashire with substitute growths in place of the American raw cotton. All substitutes are unsatisfactory, some rather less unsatisfactory than others, but unfortunately the crops of the two more satisfactory substitutes—the Nigerian and Uganda


growths—are limited and will not make up the difference in the short-fall, and neither will that of Brazil, which also has had a crop failure this past season.
The most acceptable of all the substitutes perhaps, are the synthetic fibres, particularly of rayons—viscose and acetate rayon—but here the Government have been indulging in some very curious actions. They have allowed exports of rayon staple to the Continent, for which we were getting 18d. per. lb. They allowed imports of Norwegian staple, for which we paid 22d. per lb., plus 9d. per lb. Excise Duty, or a total of 31d. per lb. This seems a queer way of doing business. More recently, the Norwegians have found themselves sold out owing to the hesitations which the Government have caused in allowing people to place contracts for further Norwegian supplies, and at the same time the price of our own exports has risen only to 23d. per lb. The Government should stop this folly of allowing substantial exports of rayon staple and of allowing back into this country, if they are procurable, imports at a much higher price, of staple of similar or identical quality, and certainly a quality which could be used as a reasonable substitute, at least in part, for the raw cotton which we cannot get from America.
I should like the Government to remove some of the fears in Lancashire about unemployment resulting from this shortage of American raw cotton, by giving more information about stocks. All that we have is the total stock in Lancashire of all growths. I ask the hon. Gentleman when he replies to give some sort of breakdown of those stocks, and of the American raw cotton in them, into suitable ranges—for example, by staple lengths. If the hon. Gentleman would give also, in order of priority—the largest first and the smaller ones lower down in the list—the stocks of the main growths other than American, he might go a long way towards removing some of the fears of unemployment. If he does not do so, he will confirm the suspicion of all of us connected with the Lancashire textile industry that the Government are deliberately trying to disguise the stock situation to conceal the incompetence of the centralised organisation which they themselves have set up—the Raw Cotton Commission.
I turn to one other critical raw material question, and I must declare at least a past interest in this matter because for many years I was employed by a company which is one of the larger sulphur consumers in this country. The shortage here is of the most desirable form of sulphur, and has certainly not been caused by American stockpiling. Indeed, last year the Americans actually reduced their stocks in order to meet their domestic and export commitments. The alternative sources of sulphur for producing sulphuric acid require the use of more complicated plant at sulphuric acid works and consequently, considerable capital expenditure, and would certainly take up to two years to install.
We have an immediate short-term problem of getting more sulphur from the United States. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can clear up one confusion which exists in the trade; that is, whether this country is going to receive the minimum quantity under the contract between the British manufacturers of sulphuric acid and the United States Sulphur Export Association, which I understand is just over 200,000 tons, or whether we are to receive a larger tonnage, which has been mentioned from time to time—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) mentioned it yesterday—of 400,000 tons.
I also ask whether the Government would be prepared, when the next Budget comes along, to consider making special allowance for the very heavy capital expenditure which undoubtedly will be required if we are to install plant needed to use larger quantities of the alternative sources of sulphur for making sulphuric acid. I will not enlarge on the background of my proposal. The trouble is the small amount of profit left with the companies after taxation, but from which the capital needed for new construction ought to be drawn. I also ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can give the industry some idea of what usages of sulphuric acid are likely to be rationed in addition to the super-phosphate production, which I understand has already been reduced by 20 per cent.

12.33 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: No one will dispute for a moment the extraordinary seriousness of this problem at the present time, but I think there is


some dispute about the reasons for it arising at this time. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) suggested that everyone except the Government knew of this grave problem long ago, but I do not think that is so at all. If one looks back to the "Metal Bulletin," a trade periodical, one finds an extraordinarily complacent article as recently as 6th October. In the "Financial Times," a newspaper which has been giving us a great deal of information on the subject in recent weeks, before about 25th November there was practically no mention of it at all, and not until the end of the month, the 29th or 30th of November, did it begin to give a great deal of attention to the matter.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing (Hendon, North) rose—

Mr. Jenkins: I have very little time and cannot give way.
The second point dealt with partly by the hon. Member for Aylesbury and partly also by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) was that bulk buying had a good deal to do with the shortage. I have not seen that suggestion supported either outside or inside the House by any evidence. It has just been a question of asseveration. There is a great range of reasons—difficulties of obtaining supplies, U.S. increased consumption, U.S. stockpiling, U.S. restriction on export licences—which have had a great deal more to do with the matter than any question of bulk buying.
Certainly there was no question of that in regard to cotton, and the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) provided a complete answer to, his hon. Friend the Member for Solihull by explaining exactly what has happened in regard to cotton and making it abundantly clear to the House that our method of purchasing it had nothing to do with the present shortage.

Mr. Fort: If I might interrupt the hon. Member I would say that at another time I could disabuse his mind on this matter and I would gladly do so outside the Chamber. Bulk buying has prevented us getting abundant supplies of cotton which plight well have been procurable through private enterprise.

Mr. Jenkins: That was certainly not the impression one got from the speech of the hon. Member in which he ascribed the reasons, in considerable detail, to changes which had taken place in America. It seems to me that at the present time when everyone knows that this problem can only be solved, in so far as it can be solved, by Government to Government action, to suggest that the solution is in any way to be found by setting the private trader free is quite ludicrous. We had the spectacle of the 18 nations at O.E.E.C. trying to deal with the problem. How did they deal with it? They sent a delegation to Washington to see the United States Government. They did not send their own private buyers.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) who said the other day that if private traders can solve this problem, let them try. Let them try without the help of the talks between the Prime Minister and the President which have been going on in recent weeks. Clearly, the only solution to the problem must be provided by Government to Government arrangements. I am very glad that the communiqué issued after the Washington talks does offer some hope here. I am particularly glad that it laid stress not only on the importance of getting adequate supplies of these metals for military consumption, but also on maintaining healthy civilian economies. I am also glad that one of the immediate practical results has been the diverting of a ship-load of sulphur to this country from another destination.
I have a vital constituency interest in this problem; not greater than that of many other hon. Members but, I think, as great as that of any hon. Member. But I do not think it is any good approaching it largely from a constituency point of view, or from the point of view which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) described as robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is a national problem and we must appreciate the difficulties of the Ministry of Supply. It is no good going to the Ministry of Supply and saying, "A works in my constituency is going to lay off 100 men tomorrow, what are you going to do about it?," as if the Ministry had great stocks of zinc or aluminium on which they could lay their hands. At the same time of course, we want to know that they are


doing everything possible to get additional supplies. In this connection I ask my hon. Friend to say whether it might be possible to do a little more to get extra aluminium from Canada. Aluminium is short in its own right and there is to be a cut of 12 per cent. It can also be used in certain circumstances as a substitute for zinc.
The effect of the present situation on our economy as a whole is extremely serious. With the worsening of the terms of trade and with extra armament expenditure, we can if we get an increase in industrial production of about 6½ per cent. next year, as we have had this year, that is to say, a 4 per cent. increase in the national income, get through our difficulties without a great reduction of the standard of living. I would calculate the reduction at, perhaps, 1½ per cent., which is bad enough, but is not enormous. But what would be the position if, on the other hand, instead of an increase of 6½ per cent. on industrial production, there were a diminution of 6½ per cent. which would not be impossible if supplies get worse, because the contribution which the non-ferrous metal using trades have made to our increased production has been very great.
If that happened, the effect of trying to carry out this rearmament, bearing in mind also the effect of the worsening of the terms of trade on our economy, might be a loss not of 1½ per cent. but of 10 to 12 per cent. in the national income. We must make this clear to the Americans, who, as Marshall Aid has shown, have been so understanding of the need to build up our economy. If they allow this raw material shortage to go on, it may undo a great deal of the good which Marshall Aid has done in the last few years.

12.41 p.m.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: I am grateful for the opportunity of making a few observations on behalf of an industry which I represent. I must declare an interest in connection with the remarks I shall make, which will be related entirely to the chemical industry. It suffers at the moment in three ways, very largely as a result, directly or indirectly, of Government action or inaction. First, there is this overriding problem of shortages. Like my hon.

Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers), I do not intend to weary the House with many extraordinarily long names. I will mention only two. The first is toluene, which is produced from gas, and in the area which is now the Midlands section of the National Coal Board large supplies were made available to the chemical industry before nationalisation. I understand that since nationalisation the Midlands section of the National Coal Board have no longer been producing it, and the lack of supplies or the shortages of supplies from that source is causing considerable hardship at the present time.
The next product with which I wish to deal has a long name—phthalic anhydride. It is used in a very large number of products which are used directly in one form or another in Government contracts. The Government must make up their mind, so far as phthalic anhydride is concerned, what priorities they are to give. There are five different fields in which this product is used. The Government must tell the manufacturers in this country the priorities that must be observed.
Then there is the question of the German contribution of chemicals to this country. Traditionally, they have always supplied great quantities. I understand that now, in consequence of British and American Government policy, the German chemical industry is restricted to a certain tonnage. They are producing and shipping 300 tons a month of one product, styrene. The industry in Germany is capable of a production of more than twice that volume, but it is restricted by coal supplies, which is holding up production.
The Government also place large contracts on their own behalf with various paint, varnish and cellulose lacquer manufacturers. I earnestly ask them to consider breaking down those contracts into much smaller denominations. The placing, in some cases, of these large contracts with relatively small firms may result in those contracts ultimately not being fulfilled. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if at some future date he will consider, with his right hon. Friend, meeting a deputation from the paint, varnish and cellulose lacquer manufacturers in order that they may discuss at the highest possible level the serious problem with which they are confronted.

12.44 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. John Freeman): At the end of a short but discursive and very interesting debate, it is rather a problem, in the short time available to me, to reply. I should like, first, to make two or three general remarks about this situation and then deal, in what I am afraid must necessarily be a disjointed manner, with points about particular raw materials which have been raised during the debate.
Some hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers), who opened this debate, have made great play with what the hon. Gentleman called the complacency and the failure to take effective action on the part of the Government. I do not think there is time now to argue this case as we should perhaps do in a full day's debate, but I must say with all emphasis that I repudiate both those charges. We have not shown complacency about this problem. To the best of my knowledge, we have done everything which it has been possible to do to secure an adequate supply of materials which industry will need in the course of next year.
The hon. Member quoted a remark made by the Prime Minister in an earlier debate to the effect that he had no serious anxiety or worry about raw materials. The hon. Member has taken that remark out of its context. The Prime Minister at that stage was not concerned with going into the marginal shortages which were likely to arise. What he was saying was that, within the context of carrying out a rearmament programme costing £3,600,000 over three years, the Government saw no reason why a shortage of raw materials should interfere with its being carried out.

Mr. Lyttelton: Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that sulphur is a marginal shortage in industry?

Mr. Freeman: No. If the right hon. Gentleman will bide his time, he will see that I was suggesting nothing of the sort. I was suggesting that the whole point of the Prime Minister's remark was that at that time we saw no reason why the defence programme should not be carried out because of raw material shortages. I do not deny that since my right hon.

Friend made that remark the situation has changed somewhat for the worse; but on the whole—I speak to the House with great frankness and without partisan bias on this matter—I would say that at this stage we are still prepared to say that we see no reason why the defence programme should not be carried out, though it is clear that we have to take emergency action in the case of some of the materials which are bothering us.
As to what could have been done between the time when a possible shortage first manifested itself and the present, no hon. Member has in this debate or, so far as I know, at any other time, suggested any course of action which we could have followed that would have given us a more reasonable chance of obtaining more supplies of these materials than the actions which we have carried out without their suggestions.
There is one exception only to that, which is sometimes raised in general discussions on bulk purchase. That is the difficulty in which we have been, and in which we still are, in regard to our balance of payments with the dollar countries. There have, of course, been occasions in recent years and months when we have been unable to buy supplies of one material or another which might otherwise have been available because we have not been able to pay dollars for them. But that difficulty would have arisen whether purchasing was done centrally or on private account. I do not think that at this stage there is much point, nor is it relevant, to take up any argument which may exist one way or the other as to the desirability of central purchasing or purchasing on private account.
What we have to do to meet the situation is first to take all the steps in our power to increase the production of scarce materials; then we must scrape the barrel wherever raw materials are sold in order to find any extra supplies which can be picked up. Perhaps most important of all—the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) put it extremely well—we must try to look at this problem on the context of the international situation and see whether we can face it as an international problem.
The Prime Minister, in his speech yesterday, referred to the economic section of the talks he had with President


Truman in Washington. I am not at liberty now to go further than the form of words which my right hon. Friend then used, but he made plain to the House yesterday that we and the Americans had agreed together that the continued adequate supply of raw materials was a joint problem which was of equal importance to both of us. and that we were considering it together with a view to taking action together about it. Announcements will no doubt be made from time to time both about the machinery which will be used to deal with that problem and the progress which is made. I am not in a position this morning to say more.
I wish to say a word about one other point which has been mentioned in the debate, and which is of some importance, particularly in the case of steel. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) spoke of the difficulty which the small firm was at present experiencing in getting its supplies. He asked me questions about the volume of scrap imports which we might expect next year, and consequently the volume of steel production. We must at this stage make forecasts with due caution. We do not know what volume of scrap imports we shall be able to get next year. We do not know for certain what volume of iron ore imports we shall be able to get next year. But, with due caution, and going somewhere in the middle between the most unfavourable and the most favourable assumptions, it is reasonable to advise the House that we shall not have enough raw materials next year for the volume of steel production to continue increasing as it has done in the last three years. On the other hand, we ought to be able to maintain approximately—

Mr. Lyttelton: That will be the alibi for nationalisation.

Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Gentleman said that that would be the alibi for nationalisation. He knows perfectly well, as does everybody who has any dealings with the steel industry, that the shortage of raw materials for steel-making is a serious problem which the whole industry is considering with great anxiety. Argument about the rights or wrongs of nationalisation does not help us over this problem. As far as we can see now, probably the output of general steel next

year will be somewhere about the same level as it is this year; that is to say, somewhere about 16,250.000 tons. If that is so, it is pretty clear that there will be enough steel, allowing possibly for a slight cropping back of exports if necessary, to meet our essential demands.
As far as any of us can calculate, there is now enough steel to meet our demands. Therefore, the apparent shortage which has developed during recent weeks is a shortage which arises from panic ordering. I most earnestly ask those people who are placing orders for steel, and who have placed orders in recent weeks, first, not to duplicate their orders. That is part of the trouble. Secondly, I appeal to industry now to look round and, where duplicate orders have been placed, to take the bold course and cancel them. If that were done, it would have a striking effect in a very short time on the general steel situation in this country.
I was asked questions about sulphur by the hon. Member for Aylesbury and others, including the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort). I cannot answer all the questions that were asked because at this moment the Government are not in possession of the necessary information. The fact is that the United States have taken over the allocation of American sulphur supplies both for home and for export, and they have not yet told other countries what allocations they are likely to get.
I want to clear up a point, which was raised yesterday at Question time, about the emergency shipments which have been reported recently in the Press. The facts are these: an instalment of 20,000 tons for the manufacture of sulphuric acid has been promised for shipment to this country during January, 1951—that is, next month. Arrangements have also been made for an emergency consignment of 7,500 tons, for manufacturing purposes other than sulphuric acid, to be shipped during the present month. Although they quoted the figure wrongly, I think that the reports that have appeared in the Press may have referred to that second shipment. That is the position about the reports of the emergency shipments.
On the admittedly far more important problem of what the prospects are continuing into next year, we have not yet at our disposal the facts which would


enable me to tell the House accurately—

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman is, I think, in a position to say that our shortage of elemental sulphur during 1951 will be of the order of 250,000 tons and that, therefore, the emergency shipments should be considered in relation to that amount.

Mr. Freeman: I certainly am in a position to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that our shortage is very serious.

Mr. Summers: Would the hon. Gentleman see that, in discussing subjects like this, we present our case as partners in a world enterprise and not merely as customers of producers in America?

Mr. Freeman: That was partly the Prime Minister's intention in going to Washington.
I should like to say a few words about zinc which, as far as metals are concerned, presents far the most serious of the shortages. The hon. Member for Aylesbury said that we had had many warnings from the Opposition. If the world were to end in cosmic chaos tomorrow morning, no doubt the Opposition would be able to claim that they warned us about it. The credit to His Majesty's Government is that they ever take notice of warnings from the Opposition—not that they sometimes do not.
The fact is that, as the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Jenkins) pointed out, the metal trade has not entirely taken the same view as the hon. Member for Aylesbury on this point. Zinc has never been one of the metals which has been relatively plentiful. It has always caused us some concern since the war. The acute shortage which we are facing now has arisen since the beginning of the last quarter of this year. It was at the very beginning of this quarter that we first warned industry and first made a restriction on consumption by industry.
The main cause of the shortage in all these metals is the fact that world demand has very suddenly and sharply risen. But the particular cause in the case of zinc, which has upset our calculations to a much greater extent than it would have been reasonable to suppose, was the failure of a large consignment of zinc from

Belgium which we had a clear undertaking would be delivered in this quarter. It has not been delivered and probably may not be delivered in the next quarter. We are at present engaged in seeking any parcels of zinc that we can find anywhere in the world. Neither prices nor dollars will be a consideration which will prevent us from picking them up if they are available. I do not think that on that subject we can do more.
The zinc problem is indeed a very serious one. Of all these metal shortages, this is the one most likely to have serious repercussions on industry in the next few months. I repeat what the Prime Minister said yesterday—that zinc was one of the materials discussed in Washington. I am not in a position to say whether anything will come out of those discussions or not. But it is clear that we have to face the prospect, at least for the first two quarters of next year, of a very serious shortage.
Therefore, I must announce to the House that the Ministry of Supply will, as from 1st January—the beginning of the next quarter—introduce an allocation system for zinc. As any hon. Members who have had dealings in this field will realise, it is a matter of great complexity. I must admit that probably the allocation system introduced on 1st January will not be as extensive or as effective as we shall be able to secure in the course of subsequent months. But we are introducing an allocation system on 1st January, and I think that that meets part of the point put by the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates).

Mr. Drayson: The hon. Gentleman has said that if parcels of zinc can be picked up in any part of the world, prices or hard currency will not be a consideration which will prevent the Government from buying them. Do we understand from that statement that there is a possibility of an increase in the price of zinc, which is at present controlled?

Mr. Freeman: No. We are talking about very small parcels of zinc, because there are no very big supplies available anywhere. Incidentally, perhaps I ought not to say that in no circumstances would price be any consideration. There are degrees of extortion to which we should not submit, but, broadly speaking, price will not be what holds us back.
The hon. Member for Stechford asked a question about aluminium. Our main supplier of aluminium is the Aluminium Company of Canada. During this summer we realised that the rearmament programme was likely to put a heavy drain on our aluminium supplies. Immediately, in the normal way, we started negotiations with them to see whether we could conclude fresh contracts to increase our supplies. Of course, aluminium is one of the most essential commodities for rearmament. I am glad to be able to tell the House that, since the Minister of Supply spoke on 7th December, negotiations with the Aluminium Company of Canada have been successfully concluded. A full statement will be issued by the Ministry of Supply in a day or two, but in the meantime I can tell the House that we have secured a sufficient supply to meet our defence and essential civilian requirements for 1951. Of course, the exact situation will depend on how the Government decide to allocate these supplies, and I am not going to say there will be no shortage in non-essential uses, but our needs for defence and essential civilian uses will be secured.
There is one question of detail which I want to answer. I would not like it to go out without correction that, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood, we were exporting nickel anodes to the United States. There is no truth in that at all. We are not exporting any nickel to the United States.
On the subject of cotton, the hon. Member for Clitheroe put to me a number of seductive questions which he had tried on my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade yesterday. My right hon. Friend then said that in the present situation he was not prepared to commit himself further. Nor am I today. I think the House will be grateful to the hon. Member for the frank and extremely fair way in which he stated his case, but I must abide by the judgment of the President of the Board of Trade and make no further comment.
Regarding the anxiety in Lancashire, I think the greatest disservice is done to the people of Lancashire by making remarks like that at the end of the hon. Member's speech. Of course, one does not seek to conceal these things, but the fact is, as the President of the Board of Trade

made plain yesterday, that we are engaged in negotiations at this moment, and that it would not be wise to say more than we have said so far. There is no ground, at the moment, for justifying exaggerated fears; on the other hand, as the hon. Gentleman knows quite well, the position is critical, and I think that he and I would be well advised to leave it at that for the moment.
Finally, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper), on the subject of toluene, I must have notice of that question as I am not in possession of the necessary information. Concerning phthalic anhydride, I am advised that at the present moment the Board of Trade would not consider it necessary to establish any formal control, but, of course, attention is being given to the question of establishing priorities. While I do not think I can commit my right hon. Friend to receive a deputation without just formally consulting him, I have no doubt that he will consider the suggestion favourably, or that the appropriate Minister will do so.
I think I have already gone just over my time, for which I apologise to the House, but it has been extremely difficult to deal with this debate in the time available to me. I am conscious that there are still a number of points which have not been adequately dealt with, and I could have wished to have a longer opportunity. Let me say, in conclusion, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking during the defence debate in the special Sitting of Parliament in the middle of September, made it quite plain that the Government was prepared, and the country had got to be prepared, to face the difficulty of industrial or economic dislocation which necessarily arose from carrying out this defence programme. As my right hon. Friend put it, our defence requirements and dollar exports rank equal first.
There is no doubt that we are going to have these difficulties in the coming year, but we believe that our defence programme can be met; and the Government will not neglect anything—whether by imposition of controls, resorting to unconventional methods of buying or entering into discussions with other countries to establish international allocations—that needs to be done for the carrying out of this defence programme, if it is humanly and physically possible.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Miss Burton.

Mr. Lyttelton: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman looks a little surprised. He will forgive my saying so, but I cannot call him, because, as he knows, the time has been fixed by Mr. Speaker, it has been published and has been accepted by the House, and has already been over-run. With the greatest good will, even in the festive season, and as I informed him, I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to impinge on the rights of another hon. Member. I therefore hope that he will not press the matter.

Mr. J. Freeman: With very great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I intercede with you? I was called to reply a minute or two later than had been arranged, and I have not run over that margin, which was already there. The right hon. Gentleman did rise with the formula "Before the hon. Gentleman sits down," and may I therefore ask you—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think one ought to depart from the normal rule; otherwise all along the line, in every Adjournment Debate, the rights of other hon. Members will be impinged upon. I am sorry.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is not the well-established practice of the House that, if a Minister is prepared to reply, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House are permitted to ask a question, which is technically within the limits of the hon. Gentleman's speech?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but that is not quite the position. The right hon. Gentleman himself, only about five minutes ago, indicated to me that his right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) wished to address the House for two or three minutes. That is not the kind of interpolation which is usually permitted under any formula, and, in the circumstances, as I have Mr. Speaker's instructions to adhere to the strict times, I think I must call upon the hon. Lady the

Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton).

Mr. Lyttelton: On a point of order. It was not to address the House, but to ask the Minister at the Box a question, that I rose, and, with great respect, I suggest that it is carrying regimentation a little far if we cannot, in the time allocated to the Minister's speech, ask a question on the formula "Before the hon. Gentleman sits down."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As I have indicated, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) informed me that his right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot desired to speak for two or three minutes, and that is a different proposition altogether from merely asking a question, which the right hon. Gentleman could do on other occasions, and, indeed, could have done while the Minister was speaking. I am sorry, but the time-table must be adhered to.

Mr. Lyttelton: If there is any misunderstanding, I should be glad to see it cleared up. I understood that I would not be called upon to address the House for two or three minutes, but I wished to ask one question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry. Miss Burton.

PLAYING FIELDS

1.7 p.m.

Miss Burton: I regret the unfortunate contretemps, but, at least, the matter which I propose to introduce is one which will be supported on all sides of the House, and, if we can forget the last three minutes, perhaps we can get on.
In drawing the attention of the House to this question of additional playing fields accommodation, I should like to say that we are all agreed on the importance of this problem. I want to take the words "playing fields" in their widest sense, so as to include not only the usual playing grounds but also swimming baths or "lidos". The Minister knows that such was my intention. I should like also to find the opinion of the House on the question of having certain accommodation floodlit at night because, if we are to have additional accommodation that is only to


be available until dusk we shall certainly not meet our needs. It is not only a question of providing for school children or adults or young people, but of providing for everyone.
I do not know how many hon. Members who are now in the Chamber saw a film which was showing yesterday on the "Communist Youth Rally" in Berlin. I went to see that film, and it seemed to me that, unless we do something attractive and something vigorous for our young people, we have no right to complain if they go into other activities, of which we may not necessarily approve.
Concerning my own personal experience, for the 15 years prior to the war, I was dealing with this question of playing fields accommodation in its widest sense and for all ages, first of all, in the City of Leeds, which, as everyone knows, is highly industrialised and heavily populated and then in London. In Leeds the schools, in common with the schools in many other cities, had access to the city parks, in which they could play games, but I well remember that the playing of games with hard balls was forbidden in many of them because of the need to provide safety for other people walking in the parks. In any case, the children had long distances to go to reach these parks. In those days it was primarily a problem for the less well-to-do sections of the population, whether they were adults or children. I have always thought it very difficult to play games in London unless one had a certain amount of money because, in the centre of the big cities, the necessary facilities are not available.
Before the war, in the London County Council parks, steps were taken which I think were very useful and which might be copied elsewhere in the country. We are all agreed, I am sure, that it is not only a question of providing accommodation but also a question of seeing that the accommodation is used, and in that connection I should like to pay a tribute to the Parks Committee of the London County Council. Going back to the year 1938, the Chairman of the Parks Committee of the London County Council was Mrs. Hugh Dalton, wife of the present Minister of Town and Country Planning, and the Leader of the London County Council was the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Lord President of the Council.
In 1938 we had in the East End of London, as we have now, Victoria Park Lido. This was an excellent swimming pool, with a large surround where games or physical activities could be carried on, and in 1938 it was found that the lido was not being fully used. Through the co-operation of the L.C.C., in this lido in the East End we were able to provide a coach to teach swimming and another leader to teach dancing and physical training. From the moment that was done the Lido was used in its fullest capacity. I have here a copy of "The City and East London Observer" for 6th August, 1938, and the heading is:
Lido Club for East Enders—Membership threepence a week.
For that threepence it was possible to go into the Lido to swim, to have swimming lessons and to join in the dancing and in the games. At that time there was a considerable amount of financial distress in the East End and for anyone who was unemployed the membership cost one penny a week for himself and his family.
That scheme was a great success and the same experiment was repeated in 1939 in the lido at Parliament Hill Fields in the North of London. That, too, was a great success. I want, therefore, to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what was done in those lidos and to ask him whether, as far as possible, he would feel able to recommend such policies for adoption throughout the country.
The leaders who were teaching in those lidos were paid but, having worked a great deal with voluntary organisations. I believe that these voluntary organisations must be asked in the future, as in the past, to contribute leaders for this work. I think everyone in the House will agree that, even apart from the health-giving aspects of being taught to swim, the ability to swim is a necessity. I should like to see it compulsory for everyone to learn to swim when they go to school, unless there are health reasons for not doing so.
I turn to the question of lighting these grounds, fields or lidos at night. In 1938–39 the National Fitness Council published a report on the question of floodlighting facilities for games at night. They took examples from the City of London and mentioned the case of elec-


trically floodlighting two netball courts at Tottenham. As an enthusiast for netball, which I think is an excellent game for both boys and girls, I should like to point out that the cost of floodlighting those two courts was £100.
I know that we cannot compare today's prices with those of pre-war, but I think it is interesting to note that the cost was not prohibitive. A swimming pool at Enfield was floodlit by gas and the installation cost £372, the area being floodlit covering 1.3 acres. Turning to more modern examples, I see from the "Daily Express" of 27th November that the idea seems to be that the Football Association will authorise the floodlighting of professional football pitches, so it would appear that I am not asking for something which is impossible.

Mr. Snow: I intervene on this point only. As an enthusiastic swimmer I have always felt how wrong it was to encourage tuition in swimming using the so-called breast stroke. It is an exhausting stroke, outmoded according to current opinion. I hope that, by virtue of the publicity which will be given to the hon. Lady's speech, it will be possible to encourage tuition in the over-arm crawl or trudgen stroke.

Miss Burton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. When you can do anything well in athletics, you do it easily. The difficulty is that when you are learning it is very hard work. At the moment I am learning to skate and I am finding it very difficult. I think that, done well, the breast stroke is a very useful and easy stroke. There is nothing harder than to play games easily.
Perhaps I may move on from there and turn briefly to the City of Coventry, which I have the honour to represent. In that city the existing total space of parks or fields can be regarded as fairly satisfactory but, in common with many other industrial cities, there is a deficiency of playing fields. We have compensations in the use of what we call common lands, but at present in the City of Coventry the amount of public playing fields is in the proportion of 2.3 acres per thousand of the population. We know that that is too little and we propose that it shall be increased to a minimum of 3.2 acres per thousand of the population. I realise that

even that is too little, but I would stress that in Coventry there will be additional small areas in the new neighbourhood units.
Perhaps I may pay this tribute to Coventry before I deal with the question of the lack of accommodation. We have in Coventry the Rugger captain of England, a woman cycle champion, and Coventry City at the moment are second in Division II of the Football League. I hope that with more accommodation we shall do better still.
The difficulty is that the question of rateable values raises a very serious problem for the authorities in our cities. I have sympathy with the local authority which pointed out that if all the space required for playing fields were provided, it would mean a three-mile green belt round the city, and we who are speaking so enthusiastically about this subject must accept that problem. Although I have nothing to do with them, I should like to mention three organisations, because I think they are doing a great job in helping with this work. First is the National Playing Fields Association; second is the National Association for Girls' Clubs and Mixed Clubs; and third, and perhaps not so well known, is Coram's Fields who, in the center of London, are trying to meet the multiple needs of playgrounds for children.
Although I know that my right hon. Friend will be willing to give us all the help he can, it will not be much use unless hon. Members put forward definite suggestions. I should like to ask him, therefore, whether the Ministry would do all they can to encourage local authorities and the education authorities in this matter. First, we want more playgrounds and I believe that in our cities, certainly in London and in Coventry, we could make more use of blitzed sites for these playing grounds, if only temporarily, and they could be lit at night. We want more playing fields, and I think we will all agree that this problem not only concerns children at school, but concerns the youngster who has just left school and is not good enough to get into the first team of some organisation. He really is stranded and should get help.
This question does not concern my right hon. Friend only. I have heard of several places where playing fields have been provided but have not been used


because no buildings or hutments were allowed to be erected upon them. Where a field is at some distance from the centre of the city, a certain amount of lavatory accommodation has to be provided and also there must be somewhere for the children to change; I do not mean palatial shower rooms; but somewhere where they can hang up their clothes and leave their boots.
Playing fields are required on grounds of health and also because children must have somewhere where they can work off their surplus energy. If they can work off that energy on the playing fields, they are so much safer from road accidents. While additional playing fields are not the whole answer to the problem of juvenile delinquency, they are certainly part of the answer. We talk about the "tough" youngsters, and we have all had them in our clubs in the cities, but their trouble is that they have nothing to do at night, and I am going to be bold and say there is nothing for them to do on Sundays. That is not the fault of the children. The fault is that the provision for them is not there. I am grateful to the Minister for coming here to reply and I ask the House to agree that we need additional playing fields for the people of this country.

1.23 p.m.

Wing Commander Bullus: I am happy to associate myself with the plea of the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). There is no one more fitted than she is to make such a plea. She has mentioned that she comes from the City of Leeds, but she has not mentioned the many honours she has won on the playing fields of the county of broad sporting acres. The hon. Lady mentioned the possibility of floodlighting. I used to train on Headingley Rugby Union ground, Leeds. I used to be very tired of running in the dark and I found that I was one of very few who trained at night. When we installed floodlighting, at a quite nominal cost, I found that the attendance for training purposes represented almost the entire membership of the club. It is possible to play games by floodlight and I have enjoyed many such games in the evening. I hope that this possibility will be well noted.
The general conflict is between more playing fields and the maintenance of

existing allotments. The right balance must be struck. We want all the food we can grow at home at this time, but we do need the maximum facilities for a fit nation. I would not advocate reducing the number of allotments we have. Indeed, I feel that it is essential that we should not only maintain the existing allotments, but, where possible, increase their numbers. I know there are conflicting opinions about allotments and playing fields, among the various local authorities in the country, but I believe that we should grow all the food possible.
What should we do then to secure extra playing fields? There are many areas in the country—some of them are cleared bombed sites—unsuitable for growing vegetables but which, with a little labour and a little finance, could provide additional playing areas. The local authorities might explore the possibilities. I am sure the whole House will agree with me that we should like to see the maximum amount of these areas used, especially next year, the Festival of Britain year.
When I was a member of the Leeds City Council before the war we had a form of controlled tipping by the cleansing department which allowed for the eventual provision of playing fields. They were good fields. I have often played on them and enjoyed my "rugger" on them. But there is one danger on these particular fields. On occasions while playing on them I have seen quite a large amount of scrap glass that had risen through the soil to the surface. That can be very dangerous when one is playing rugger, hockey or soccer. I know of cases, not in Leeds, where playing fields have had to be closed because the glass buried in the tip had risen to the surface. If that danger could be avoided, much more could be done by local authorities in controlled tipping to secure eventual use of the ground as playing fields.
I feel sometimes that we do not always make the use we might of existing playing fields in the schools. I know that this is a delicate point and that it is a matter for the schools; and I have had experience on local education committees of trying to persuade headmasters who were proud of the playing fields attached to their schools to allow them to be used by others outside school hours. I urge


that local education committees should seek a friendly and co-operative attitude from such masters and that in a limited and specified time these fields might be used by others and even be floodlit.

Mr. Pannell: Will the hon. and gallant Member agree that the schools eventually belong to the people and that there are governing bodies who might reasonably discipline any uncooperative headmaster?

Wing Commander Bullus: I agree, but it is not confined to public schools. I was a member of the district council at Harrow, an area representing a tenth of the county of Middlesex, yet we had to go to the county council to ask permission to use our own school fields. I feel also that something might be done in the case of golf courses, more particularly where there is a golf course in a built-up area. I think it is possible, for a specified time, to give a certain portion of the golf course over to playing fields. I know it is a delicate matter. I play golf, and there is nothing worse than to see a whole flock of people crossing in the way of one's drive. But the possibilities might be investigated.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South, has raised an important subject and the House will be grateful to her for doing so. We need a fit nation, especially in the days ahead, and for that we require many playing fields.

1.29 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) for raising this matter. We had hoped on a previous occasion to debate a Motion on this very issue. Today we have managed to have a short Adjournment debate and I shall make my remarks as brief as I promised. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) that we must relate the need for these playing fields to agriculture, not just in the wide sense but to the provision of allotments in our cities. It is necessary to strike the right balance, but it should be remembered that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education who is going to reply to this debate has a major responsibility in this matter.
It is laid down in the Education Act that, in conjunction with the local educational authority, he can provide the various facilities for sport and recreation that have been mentioned by my hon. Friend. I should like to stress that it is the duty of the education authorities and the Government to lead in this matter. There are various voluntary organisations which have played a considerable part in this direction, and I should like to pay my tribute to the National Playing Fields Association who, through their national organisation and their various county committees, have for a long time conducted a campaign for more playing fields for our children. We certainly wish them success in their their work.
We should consider the problem from two points of view. First, we are a sporting nation. Despite all the jeremiads, I still think we have the best footballers and cricketers in the world, and we all welcome the fact that our cricketers put up such a magnificent performance the other week in Australia. We should not be ashamed of our sporting activities, but I still think we shall have better specialists if we improve standards all round. In order to do that we must provide playing fields and, in certain cases, proper coaching facilities.
I understand that the Football Association and the Rugby League, which has a special interest in my own area, are providing facilities in conjunction with the local education authority, but we must have the playing fields. If we can improve general standards, I think we can improve also the standard of the specialist. It is all very well to attend matches, as we do as a great nation, week after week, but we want more people playing. If we aim at that, I am certain we shall have a much healthier community.
I was very glad that my hon. Friend stressed the question of juvenile delinquency. I have always believed that this should be tackled from the point of view not of punishment but of prevention. I think both my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education and the Home Secretary do look at it from that point of view, and I am certain that if we can only provide more playing fields, more clubs and more facilities for recreation, we shall really get at the heart of juvenile delinquency. If I could parody that atrocious saying about the battle of Waterloo being won on the playing fields of Eton,


I would say that the battle against juvenile delinquency can and will be won on the playing fields of Britain. If we can provide more of the facilities that have been mentioned today, we shall really be counteracting juvenile delinquency in our country.
We should consider the problem, therefore from the point of view, first, of our sporting position as a nation and the improvement of standards all round; and, second, juvenile delinquency and the need to have a balanced educational system. After all, we must not think solely in terms of intellect. It is essential that in all our schools, whatever their status, there must be equality of opportunity. I remember that when I was a games master at a little grammar school, a school next door which had not the same status had no facilities such as our children had. That is wrong, and we must try to right it. Therefore, I ask the Government, through the Minister of Education, to give every encouragement—I am certain he will—not only to local authorities but to organisations like the National Playing Fields Association, which are doing such fine work in this direction.

1.34 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I am sorry that it is necessary for me to rise at this stage, because I would certainly have liked to hear other hon. Members who, I know, are interested in this important subject, but we are subject to the rules of procedure. However, perhaps on another occasion we shall be able to go further into the subject.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) for raising this matter. We all realise its importance, and I have no hesitation in giving general support to the idea of the development of playing fields. They are desirable and helpful in more ways than one, as has already been demonstrated, but nobody can gainsay that they constitute a problem in this island of ours which makes it difficult to go as far as we would all desire to go.
Very often the land which is available in this country, and which could very well be utilised for this purpose, is not in the place where the people want it. There are times when I am travelling in the country in the course of the job which I am attempting to do, and I see vast

level spaces of land with not a house for miles. I never pass such a field without saying to myself—I have been a bit of a cricketer in days gone by—"What a lovely cricket field that would make." I know that would be regarded as sacrilege by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, but I can always see some better use to which I think land could be put even than growing wheat—probably because of my prejudices.
I should like to deal with the question to which reference has been made by various hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), on the respective values of different swimming strokes. The only stroke that I have been able to manage is what we call in Lancashire "dogging" it. That is a cross between the side-stroke, the crawl, the breast stroke and everything else. It involves using all the facilities one has in order to keep afloat. While, as Minister of Education, I would not dream of interfering to the extent of making it compulsory for every child to be taught to swim, I think we should all realise the value of it. If one makes compulsory a subject in which a child is particularly interested, one begins to interfere with what I consider to be a most important thing, and that is the freedom of the teacher to determine the syllabus of the school.
It is essential that in the provision of our playing fields we should ensure that women and girls get a fair share of the facilities provided. I am inclined to think—although this question has been raised by a lady Member—that sometimes they do not get all the consideration to which they are entitled when we think of playing fields, playing spaces, the provision of courts, etc. We all think in terms of cricket and football, and we allow the ladies to come in as an exception, as something in the nature of an attraction, and, in spite of my hon. Friend's competence in this direction, we never take them particularly seriously in that sphere. I am afraid that we sometimes think so much in terms of cricket and football that we are apt to put hockey, for instance, in a very inferior place and not make the provision necessary for our women and girls.
I should like to emphasise the necessity of all young people playing. There


is only one point I should like to make about this. I have heard a lot about the necessity for becoming a nation of players instead of spectators. I hope that if we are all going to play we do not get the idea that we can continue to play for a long time. The amount of space in this island is just not sufficient and cannot be made sufficient to enable everybody to play. I think there is something to be said for the individual who plays for a short period of his life, because he then becomes what I would call an intelligent spectator. I think that one of the things that we need to cultivate today is the art of watching as well as the art of playing. I am in the habit of visiting playing fields on Saturday afternoons when I get the opportunity, which is not often, and I study the crowd as well as the players. I know that the best players are always in the grandstand. The comments which I hear from time to time lead me to the conclusion that some education is needed on the part of the spectators as well as on the part of the players. We need to be able to watch intelligently as well as to play intelligently, because I think that is to our benefit.
I want to say a word of encouragement to those people who in days past have done so much voluntary work in this direction and have created what I call a consciousness, as a result of which the Government have been compelled to listen to the claims of playing fields associations and other organisations. That is the way things have developed in this country. People think deeply about a matter and create a consciousness, and that consciousness having been created, the nation sees the necessity for the provision of what is required.
I should like also to say a word on behalf of a body of people who are, I think, sometimes lost sight of. Every Saturday morning in this country there are literally thousands of teachers who spend their time seeing that the boys who play cricket in summer and football in winter are properly supervised, and one of the joys of my life is to visit a really good boys' football or cricket match, which would not be possible had it not been for the devoted services of a good many people whom we seldom hear anything about and who have devoted much unpaid time to that service.

Something has been said about the necessity for using our playing fields more and introducing floodlighting. I am not going to say whether I think it is an advantage to play games in floodlighting. I have only seen one match played in floodlighting, and that was a baseball game in America. Maybe I was prejudiced, but on that occasion I found the floodlighting far more attractive than the game itself. Whether it is possible to do anything in that direction or not, I do not know. I know that experiments are being made and that the London County Council have done something in that direction in an experimental way, and, indeed, that they have gone rather beyond the experimental stage.

Mr. James Johnson: My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware that on the Continent many of our amateur football sides have played in floodlighting. I was at The Hague and played for the Swallows 20 years ago.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am not suggesting that for purposes of staging matches of that kind this may not be a good thing. What I am pointing out is that I think it is necessary, if we are to use playing fields to the full extent in that way, that there should be a limit to the play that takes place on the field itself. I am anxious to call the attention of the House to that point because the majority of the fields actually in use in this country are suffering more from over-playing than from under-playing. That, I know, is the case with regard to the grass field rather than the macadam asphalt or concrete playing ground.
I am all in favour of experiments being made, and I have encouraged, among other things, the provision of concrete pitches for cricket. I want to be quite honest by saying that I do not myself like them. I would much rather play on grass. When we used to talk about hard centres and hard surfaces, I used to think that they were something that the rain would run off or something that was constantly kept dry. The only hard surface that I played on as a youngster was a paved back street where I learned the rudiments of cricket. That had the disadvantage of being not only hard but uneven, and it gave me an opportunity of meeting that kind of difficulty which was not provided on grass


fields. Care should be taken by the people responsible to see that the individuals for whom the playing fields are primarily obtained are the last sufferers when overplaying has taken place.
Someone has suggested that we ought to consider the possibility of using up the spaces that are available. We have considered that possibility. The hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) suggested that there might reasonably be an approach not only to the people who control their own playing fields, but to the education authorities and the local authorities which are responsible for open spaces, so that there might be a kind of combination of the two in the utilisation of the playing fields.
As Minister of Education, whenever the question of utilising school playing fields for other purposes has come forward, I have regarded it as my duty to safeguard first the children for whom the playing fields have been provided. Whenever there is any question of closing down playing fields through over-playing, they are always closed down at times when the youngsters in the schools are not playing, rather than at times when those outside are playing. For all these reasons, I think it is necessary for us to see that the suggestions which are brought forward are advantageous not only to one particular section but to all concerned.
The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South, asked me not only to be generally sympathetic towards this idea but to encourage local authorities in this work. Since I became the Minister responsible for the implementation of the 1944 Act, we have done a great deal. I do not like quoting figures on occasions like this, but for the purposes of the record, I should like to tell the House what we have done in that direction. During the five years since we started off after the war, my Department has offered £1,048,000 in grants towards 975 local public playing field schemes—approximately £1,000 per scheme. During the 10 months ended 31st October of this year—a very difficult period—we have offered a little over £100,000 in respect of 213 schemes; in other words, about £470 per scheme.
I do not want to pretend that that is anything like adequate. Our grants are

small in comparison with the cost and they demand a great effort on the part of local people. Our progress in the present circumstances is bound to be slow, but we are trying to encourage steady development during these difficult times. That is the reason why, although we have had to cut out to a large extent any building schemes that were required in connection with playing fields, we have, wherever it was possible, assisted the local authority to the extent of £1,000 to provide these schemes and establish development in that direction.
We have done that primarily because we believe, as has been said in the House on several occasions today, that it is advantageous not only from the standpoint of physical health but as part and parcel of the education of a normal being, and because it will, I think, help in solving the problem of juvenile delinquency, about which we are hearing so much.

HOSPITAL REGISTRARS

1.50 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I am very grateful for this opportunity of raising the question of hospital registrars, and in particular the circular, "Review of Appointments to Registrar Grades." This is a subject which is full of inflammable matter, and I shall try to avoid any sort of provocation, which I hope will also be the attitude of all who speak in this debate. It is too important a subject to permit anything in the way of a "dog fight."
First, I ought to tell the House what hospital registrars are. I find in speaking to people outside, and even with Members, that there is a great deal of misapprehension about the nature of the duties of registrars. They are, of course, fully trained and qualified doctors; indeed, they should be, and they generally are, the very pick of the medical profession. They have a double function in the hospital. First of all, they are salaried members of the hospital staff doing specialist work. They are not fully qualified specialists, but they do specialist work, and they do it without what can be described as supervision.
While doing this work, they are acquiring skill with a view to becoming


fully qualified specialists or consultants—I shall use the word "specialist" as covering the two, if, in fact, they can be distinguished at all. Not all registrars become specialists. A certain number fail to make the grade. But a fair proportion do make the grade, and all who become registrars do so in the expectation that in due course they will become specialists. They are no novelty. They have existed in our hospitals for a long time past.
Since the inauguration of the National Health Service, the number of registrars has very greatly increased. The reason is a very simple one. The country and the individuals concerned were told that the present number of 5,200 specialists, for the most part-time, would be increased to 7,500 full-time specialists. It was not intended that they should all be full-time, but that the total number should be the equivalent of 7,500 full-time specialists. In other words, the increase was to be something in the order of 100 per cent.

The Minister of Health (Mr Aneurin Bevan): When were they told that?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The increase was set out in the plan, "Development of Consultant Services," published about the same time as the National Health Service Bill was introduced, and I understand that the document was re-published earlier this year. I presume, therefore, that it represents the official view of the Minister.

Mr. Bevan: Let us be quite clear. They were not told that at all in that document.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Certainly that is the way that I understood the document. It is certainly understood in that way by a large proportion of the medical profession, if not by all the medical profession. If that is not the Minister's intention, I hope that he will give an explanation in the course of his speech.
Hospitals were certainly encouraged to increase the number of registrars on their staff. To say that they were "encouraged" is putting it mildly, because they were, in fact, told that they could and should make this specialist increase. The increase was, in fact, absolutely necessary because of the added amount of work that was coming to the hospitals. The individuals concerned, who saw what was happening and who were told of this intended

expansion, not unnaturally thought that here was an opportunity, a very proper opportunity, to rise to the highest posts in their profession.
The result of this increase is that we now have some 2,800 registrars on hospital staffs, and of these about 1,400 are senior registrars—that is to say, they have done more than two years' work as a registrar. It is also proper to mention that at the present time a very high proportion of these senior registrars are over 30 years of age. That is exceptional, but it is the result of the delay which occurred by reason of the war. A high proportion of these registrars, who are to do this essential work in the hospitals, are men just entering the best period of their life and probably facing their heaviest family responsibilities.
From the training point of view, I must admit quite candidly that 2,800 is too many. I wish to emphasise that I am now looking at this question from the training point of view. The hospitals cannot at the present time absorb the number of new specialists who will be coming forward on an establishment of 2,800 registrars. That has meant that something had to be done. If no action is taken, we shall necessarily have one of two results—either a very serious bottleneck in promotions, or specialists without the facilities to do their work as specialists. That was the situation that the right hon. Gentleman had to face, and he has faced it by bringing out the circular to which I have referred.
If I may put the circular shortly and, I hope, fairly, it proposes that the establishment of registrars shall be reduced to 600 senior registrars and 1,100 registrars for the country as a whole: that is to say, a total of 1,700 as compared with the existing total of 2,800—a reduction of 1,100. The method to be employed is that the registrar's course, if I may use the term, his period as registrar, is in future to be for five years, with suitable pruning at the end of every year. I have no quarrel with that as a suggested policy. Secondly, it is suggested that hospitals are to limit the number of new appointments to fit the new establishment. Without discussing the question of what is the proper size of establishment, I must agree that new appointments must fit whatever establishment is decided upon.
Thirdly, it is suggested—and this is where all the trouble has arisen—that the hospitals are to terminate 1,100 existing appointments at the end of the current year. These terminations are to start with effect from 1st January. I think I am right in saying, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, the intention is that much the largest part of these 1,100 registrars who are to be disappointed will come from the third-year senior registrars class. It is quite clear, as the main cut is to fall on the senior registrars, that the majority of those disappointed will be in that class. I think the intention is that out of that class again the majority will be those who have, in fact, been in the hospitals for the longest period.
The most significant sentence in the circular to which I should like to draw the attention of the House is contained in paragraph 3. It reads:
The information available indicates that for some years to come the number of appointments available to senior registrars to complete their training at hospitals in England and Wales is unlikely to exceed 150 annually.
Thus, of the new specialist coming forward, it is intended that after making good wastage by death, retirement and the supply for posts overseas, there will only be something of the order of 30 additional specialists coming forward every year. That is the figure which was calculated by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) when he spoke in the House the other evening. I should like to get confirmation or otherwise from the Government, but on any basis the number could not possibly exceed 50 in a year. The House will, therefore, see that if we are to reach the kind of figure which was contemplated in the Government's paper, namely 7,500 full-time specialists, it will take us on the worst footing at least 80 years, and on the best footing something well over 30 years. The immediate increase will be negligible.
The question I wish to ask the Government is, how do they propose to carry through the plan for the development of the consultant service as contained in that paper? If they are no longer aiming at a specialist service of some 7,500 specialists, what is the figure that they have in mind, and when do they intend to achieve it, because it is on the answers to those question that all matters raised by this circular depend. We are entitled

to ask the Government for an answer to that.
The Minister of Health has said in answer to a question that he was not prompted by economy in the action which he has taken, and if I may say so, I am willing to accept that statement. Indeed, it is perfectly obvious that the action proposed in this circular cannot be because of economy. I should like to quote from what is reported as having been said by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), who is a chairman of a regional board and incidentally of the Central Health Services Council. He was reported in the "Economist" as having said:
If the hospitals service of his region are not to be reduced, the registrars will have to be replaced by the appointment of more consultants, senior hospital medical officers, junior hospital medical officers or general practitioners with the right qualifications and the time. The first two categories, who alone can really do the work, will cost far more than the registrars they will replace.
This is accepted by all, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman intended. If he was not prompted by motives of economy, what is the purpose in cutting down the immediate increase to the total number of specialists which was envisaged in his paper and I imagine confirmed earlier this year? What is the reason for the sudden change in policy on the part of the Government? I can understand, as I said at the beginning, that there is need to take action in this connection, but why have the Government suddenly changed their policy from a contemplated total of 7,500 to what appears to be now merely the existing total, and, indeed, a total very similar to that which existed when the National Health Service first came into operation?
This circular has struck dismay—and I do not think I am putting it too high—in the breasts of all those concerned with the Health Service—doctors, hospitals, politicians and everyone concerned. Even the Socialist Medical Association has put in a very warm protest to the Minister asking him to withdraw the circular. Quite apart from the question of broad policy, we have here 1,100 acutely disappointed individuals. It is true that alternative work was suggested to those individuals who lose their positions as registrars. I refer to paragraph 12 and


the appendix of the circular. I do not wish to develop This point.
I believe that certain of my hon. Friends have something to say about it, but I would say that to tell these men who have already had their careers once disorganised by the war and have spent quite substantial periods overseas, they are now to lose the expectation of becoming specialists, and as an alternative they can seek posts overseas or in the Forces is really the epitome of psychological ineptitude. The posts themselves are such that I would warmly recommend anyone to take them, but to make that recommendation in this connection at this time was surely the way to wreck this scheme from the very start.
Why was this situation not foreseen? There is now a sense of injustice amongst those who are concerned and there is also a sense of personal waste. They feel they have been unjustly treated because the cut—and I am not using that expression in any offensive sense—has fallen on a single class of the medical community, and that is a class which once before has had its life seriously interfered with. They have a sense of personal waste in that they have done five years in training to become specialists and a great deal of that work must necessarily be lost. Of course, there is the actual waste to the community of the effort and time required to train these men to be specialists. Some no doubt must necessarily be lost in the ordinary course of events, but I feel that the House is entitled to an explanation why the position was allowed to reach its present pitch before some action was taken, which would have avoided a great deal of this personal hardship.
If I may in conclusion generalise, I think this is a particular example of the general trouble affecting the Health Service. The inauguration of the service stimulated demand for what the service could supply. I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me when I say that, while the service enormously stimulated demand, very little was done and indeed little could be done to increase the corresponding supply. In financial matters, when demand enormously exceeds supply, we get currency inflation. In effect, we have here something in the nature of medical inflation: there are too

many patients chasing too few doctors, dentists and hospital beds. That is what is causing the trouble in other departments of the Health Service, and it is at the root of our present difficulty.
What we must do somehow is to bring the demand for hospital beds and hospital specialist attention into line with supply, and I do not believe that what is proposed in this circular will do anything to help. Indeed, my own view is that it will aggravate the trouble rather than otherwise. I ask the Minister to look at this matter again, to withdraw the circular and to bring forward other suggestions to deal with the matter in a more fundamental and more humane manner. If he does so, I am certain that it will be for the ultimate good of the service as a whole.

2.11 p.m.

Mr. Messer: I rise to speak only because I think it is my duty to convey to the Minister the very deep and widespread feeling that has been aroused by the issue of this circular. The regional hospital boards, which were charged with the responsibility of planning the service, found it a very difficult job at the beginning because of the nature of the hospitals with which they had to deal. After planning the service in the way which they thought was the best to meet the needs of the people, by grouping several hospitals together for the purpose of forming units and then, of necessity, grading those hospitals to do the work required, they found in their grading that they were compelled to recognise what for years now has been the practice of building up medical teams on a three-tier system.
In that three-tier system, as explained by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), the registrar played a very important part. The question is not only what the registrar is, but, more important, what is the work that he does. When we are considering, as we must consider, the relative figures of staffs, it is not sufficient to say that as a result of examination there must be a reduction. There must be a reduction in that section which will not affect the service to the same extent as a reduction in other sections.
The functions of the registrar in teaching hospitals differ slightly from


those in non-teaching hospitals. In the teaching hospital he is not, as the name would imply, somebody who registers. I do not know how the name "registrar" came into existence, except that, originally, the high-ranking specialist had a man who wanted to be a high-ranking specialist tailing on behind registering his cases and looking after him. That, I believe, was the origin of the term. In point of fact, the registrar is a man who has passed through the other stages; he has been the house surgeon or the house physician, where he has not been in a position to determine whether or not he would specialise. Later he may discover he has an aptitude or liking for a particular branch of medicine or surgery and may decide to follow that line. In doing so he would become junior registrar, then senior registrar and finally a specialist.
When a man has decided on that course, it is not very easy for him to switch, although there are some specialist branches which are more readily adapted to switching from one to another. It is not an easy thing for a man to decide, after a period of years of training in a particular line, to branch out into general practice. There are, of course, specialist practitioners. I do not say it is impossible; I do not say that all these registrars who will lose their posts will be signing on at the employment exchanges. That is not the case at all. There is a need for every doctor in the Service, and indeed for many more who could come into it.
I am not really concerned with the registrar, even though that may sound a little selfish. If the registrar has got to be sacrificed, and that sacrifice can be justified in the interests of the service, it must be made. I am concerned rather with the service. As I have said, the registrar in a teaching hospital does not occupy exactly the same place as the registrar in a non-teaching hospital. What he does is not merely clinical work, although he does that too. He follows his speciality; he has the day-to-day responsibility for a certain part of the work; but in addition to that, a very large part of his time is taken up in teaching others; he is part of the teaching staff, and he is therefore not merely a doctor in the sense that he is looking after patients; he is also doing the educational work.
It is obvious that there are too many registrars in the service at the present time, and I cannot agree with anybody who goes to the extreme of saying that the Minister is doing something fundamentally wrong in interfering in this respect. The Minister is responsible to this House and to the country, and when he finds that the situation is such as to require his attention, in this or in any other direction, it is his duty to put right what he believes to be wrong. In passing, I might say that I am not always in agreement with the way he does it. It is possible to do the right thing in a way that does not produce the best results, and I rather think that the approach to this matter might have been made rather differently, so that those of us who believe that he has a case for reducing the number of registrars could have discussed with him the method by which it should be done with the least hardship.
It will be necessary for me to point to the illustration of the regional board of which I am the chairman. Every chairman of every regional board is proud of the work they have been doing, and I am rather proud of the high standard of the work which is being done in my region. In planning I must have regard to the fact that we have got what may be described as nine major hospitals; that is to say, the type of hospital which will be affected by the implementation of this circular. The other hospitals will not be affected because the same system does not operate there. We group the hospitals together, which means that some of those hospitals are small and are devoted to a different type of work from that which requires the high standard of skill of the specialist staff.
I have gone into this carefully in those nine teaching hospitals, and I am saying here, with a due sense of responsibility, that unless there is a replacement of staff of equal skill—and that is the important thing; we cannot have unskilled people doing the highly skilled work that the registrar is doing—unless there is a comparable addition to replace those registrars, we shall have to close 400 beds for the type of work which we are now doing. One cannot have regard to that and feel that, if it happened, the service would not suffer. This country has a deserved reputation of being in the front rank in


medicine. If the standard of the work we are doing is to be degraded, it will be a bad thing, not merely for the service and for the profession, but for the people.
One of the alterations to which we have been turning our attention is how to meet the need for dealing with those tuberculosis patients whom we have been unable to get into hospitals or sanatoria. As is known, the length of the waiting list for such patients is not caused merely by lack of accommodation. There are about 4,000 beds in the country which could be used if we had the nursing staff. We are driven, therefore, to considering in what way we can deal with patients in their own homes.
What we have attempted to do is this. We make the chest clinic a centre. We appoint a specialist in charge of that chest clinic and we can give a number of beds in the hospital for the purpose of the observation of cases or for the primary induction of an artificial pneumothorax so that the patients can be discharged to their homes, where refill and other treatment, which normally takes place in hospitals or sanatoria, can be effected. This means, however, that we must have the same type of specialist staff—consultants at the top, the registrar, and the junior. If we are going to lose, as we are in our region, about 80 per cent. of our registrars, we must either replace them with some other type of staff, or the service will suffer.
An hour on the Adjournment is not long enough to go fully into this question. What I have said has been only by way of illustration. I have had such expressions of deep feeling from so many quarters that I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister, before he implements this circular, to take into consultation the teaching hospitals and the regional boards, so that he hears from them first-hand their view of what the result will be.

2.23 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: I am happy to have this opportunity of following the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), because he holds an important position as chairman of the North-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, and I represent a constituency within his region. We have heard this matter discussed from the standpoint of hospital

administration and also of the unfortunate prospects of the 1,100 registrars who are to disappear.
I ask the House to concentrate upon the problem from the standpoint of the locality and the patient. The Minister has issued a circular designed to solve a serious problem that exists, but so far neither from the circular nor from any of the explanations which have been given has it been possible to understand how the patient in future is to receive as good and efficient treatment as he has had in the past.
I will give an illustration which, I think, follows on what the hon. Member for Tottenham has just said. A large number of women go into hospital to have their babies. Emergency caesarian operations may have to be performed. In some maternity departments a considerable proportion of those are done by registrars. The Minister would help us if he would explain, in a case like that, who is to be available to perform these operations in future. They may occur at night or at weekends when consultants are away, and hitherto the bulk of those have fallen on the registrars.
The Minister is diminishing in size this slice of doctors who are serving the needs of patients in hospitals. He presumably is not going to make a serious diminution in the total medical and surgical staffs, because otherwise there could surely be no consequence except the closing of beds. Although I had heard rumours that in the North-West Metropolitan Region it might cause a closing of beds, I was appalled to hear confirmation from the hon. Member for Tottenham that the closing of 400 beds might become inevitable.

Mr. Messer: I should not like to be misunderstood. I said—unless people of comparable skill can be found to undertake the work which the registrars are doing.

Mr. Brooke: Yes. In my mind I was adding that proviso. It is exactly that which we are asking the Minister to explain. He is taking away this slice of doctors. He is presumably thinking that the regional hospital boards, who, I understand, have not been consulted over the drafting and preparation of this circular, are in some way to maintain the


quality and quantity of the hospital service, in spite of this cut in the number of registrars. It is that point, in particular, which I invite the Minister to explain to the House and to the country.

2.27 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I am sorry to have to intervene so early but, as the House knows, we have only a limited time and other questions are to be raised, and I wanted to give myself time, if the House will permit, to give a full explanation of the existing situation regarding registrars. I say at once how glad I am that the question has been raised and how grateful I am that it has been raised in so temperate a manner. The atmosphere in which it is raised in this House, however, is not the atmosphere in which it has been discussed in what should be responsible journals, some of the medical journals included, and certainly some of the daily newspapers.
It really is about time that some publicists should begin to develop a responsible attitude towards the Health Service and not make it the occasion for inflammatory statements, not only in respect of the organisation of the hospitals, but also regarding the tuberculosis side of the matter. I listened last night—I am entitled to say this because of what my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) said about tuberculosis—to a broadcast on the radio in the nine o'clock news which saw fit to reproduce the observations of a doctor, which were quite disgraceful in the consequences they might have on people suffering from tuberculosis.
When dealing with hospitals and with people who are sick, and sometimes sick with grave maladies it is absolutely essential to be discreet, objective and impersonal in one's observations. I do not know what the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) is grinning at, but I should have thought it was obvious that if there was one field in which levity is not required, it is this. Therefore, doctors in particular should express their views on these matters with rather more objectivity than we have seen in recent pronouncements.
The situation is perfectly clear. Every speaker so far has admitted that there were more registrars than we could find

consultant posts for. The first point, therefore it admitted. It is not I who appointed the registrars. That is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham. The responsibility lies, not with the Ministry of Health, but with the hospital boards and the teaching hospitals.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: They are given encouragement.

Mr. Bevan: We will see in a moment. In the first place, I would point out that there is now a rather different light on the Health Service than many gloomy Jeremiahs thought at the beginning. They thought the National Health Service was going to be such a failure, so discredited and unattractive, that we would find very great difficulty in finding doctors at all.

Mr. Messer: My right hon. Friend has given the impression that the regional boards are responsible for the appointment of registrars. That is not the case. The management committees are responsible.

Mr. Bevan: I accept the correction; it is the management committees under the regional hospital boards, but the regional hospital boards are, of course, responsible for the appointment of the management committees. I am only pointing out that in the first instance, whereas many of the charges levelled against the National Health Service and the Ministry of Health are charges of over-centralisation, here is the direct consequence of the fact that authority lies with the teaching hospitals and the management committees, and therefore it is not the Minister who is responsible for this. It has been said that this has been done under encouragement. But the language of the booklet to which the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) referred is very cautious. The foreword says:
In short, the aim has been to state objectives and to suggest methods by which over a period of years these objectives may be reached from the starting point of the existing resources in buildings and personnel.
"From the existing resources." Further, it says:
Two points in particular should be mentioned. The first is that the memorandum is not put forward in any sense as a series of instructions which regional boards must follow. It seeks merely to suggest tentative answers


to questions which each Board must necessarily face in considering the planning of the services for their area. The second point is the obvious one that the whole of the proposals made in the memorandum cannot be made effective immediately.
Later on, the circular says:
Such estimates"—
that is, the estimates of the number of specialists who ultimately will be desirable
must be largely speculative, for as yet there is not sufficient information on which to base even approximately accurate estimates.
Later it says:
The realisation of these ideas may not be achieved for several years since building on the scale required will not he possible for some time and the necessary consultants cannot he rapidly produced.
It is, therefore, not correct to say that the Ministry of Health, in sending out that booklet, have led people to believe that there might be such an enlargement of the number of consultants as would be indicated by the number of registrars appointed.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is a difference between several and 80.

Mr. Bevan: That must be read with the other things I have read out; not only that particular paragraph but the whole of the booklet is extremely cautious. I do not want my strictures to be too strong about it, but what happened was that a very large number of doctors returned home from the Services and were extremely anxious to take posts in the hospitals and to be trained as consultants. Under the pressure of that situation, very many more posts were provided than was reasonable. I accept that at once. But what would be more cruel than to allow them to go on on the assumption that when they did complete their training there might be consultant posts for them? Surely it is very much better to tell them as early as possible that there may not be posts for them when they have finished their training. There is nothing very wrong in saying to a trainee that he might not be a consultant. That happens normally anyhow. When one considers the extraordinary increase, I believe that what we have done has been justified.
What did the circular do? It suggested that the regional totals of posts for the two training grades, senior registrars

and registrars, should be related to an annual demand of 150. For England and Wales it is suggested that the totals for the whole country should be 600 senior registrars—a total for first, second and third year trainees—and 1,100 registrars—a total for first and second year trainees. Next, and this is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, it asked boards to consult together and submit proposals about training posts for each region within the regional total. Thirdly, it proposed steps for bringing existing numbers and new recruits down to the approved establishment of posts, and, fourthly, it suggested alternative arrangements at this level of medical staffing where the volume of hospital work necessitates it.
In other words, so wholly subjective and charged with interest is the atmosphere about these things that people do not appear to read and, if they read, they do not appear to understand. The assumption all the while is that if we reduce the number of registrars that will necessarily reduce the number of bodies in the hospital to help the consultants to do their work. That is where practically every pronouncement on this matter has gone wrong. The "British Medical Journal," which ought to know better, says here, quoting the Socialist Medical Association, with unusual enthusiasm:
the circular shows a total failure to understand the importance of the contribution made by registrars to the hospital service. By concentrating on the training they receive, it fails to appreciate how much of the essential work on the wards and in the out-patient departments is done by registrars, many of whom in fact are doing consultants' work.
One could not have in a responsible journal a more juvenile misunderstanding of the situation than that because, as the hon. Member for Hendon, South pointed out in his statement, it is obvious that if we have a very large number of registrars who are doing normal hospital work and we cut down the number of registrars drastically, we must find some people—it may be the same people—to do the work they were doing. That is exactly what we say. Indeed, this was made absolutely clear—because this circular has not come like a bolt from the blue; this circular is a result of consultations with representatives of the medical profession, and the whole matter has been made perfectly clear to them.

Dr. Hill: May I clear up one point? In relation to the substitutes, if I may call them such—who are the same people doing the same work—the circular makes it perfectly plain that it is intended as a strictly interim arrangement.

Mr. Bevan: Of course, because in the meantime, as the hon. Member knows very well, there are medical teams going round the country setting out the establishment of hospitals and when those establishments are fixed, they will be the establishments for the hospitals. It must be clear, and it is clear to the hon. Member, that unless there is a desire to see some sinister object that does not appear on the surface, the hospital work must be carried on, and must be carried on by adequate establishments. All we are trying to do here is to relate the number of trainees, the number of registrars to be trained to be consultants, to the number of consultant posts that may be available, and not to lead people to believe that a larger number of consultant posts will be available.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Gentleman says that this scheme has been devised after consultation with representative bodies, which I think was the term he used. That rather implies that he obtained agreement. Will he say what bodies he consulted and whether he obtained any agreement?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will permit me, I shall deal with that point later. Of course, agreement was not obtained, but I am bound to tell the House that the Minister of Health is the representative of the general interest, of the interests of the community as a whole. This is a specialist interest, or rather may I say, in order not to be misunderstood, a specialised, a sectional interest. It is by no means unusual that the particular interest concerned does not agree with what it is intended shall be done in the general interest. If every time a responsible Minister had to find agreement with a sectional interest before anything was done, we should have a nation of syndicalists.

Mr. Linstead: With whom in the hospital service has the right hon. Gentleman in fact got agreement on this particular matter? The regional hospital

boards? No. The management committees? No. The medical profession? No.

Mr. Bevan: I did not say that I had got any agreement, but I will tell the hon. Member at once the body with whom I expect to get agreement—the House of Commons. That is a rather important body, as important as any of them, I should have thought. The House of Commons represents the general interest, and what the House of Commons has to consider, and what I hope the House is now considering, is whether the particular claims of certain people have been properly balanced against the claims of the community as a whole.

Mr. Linstead: But the House has no opportunity of so expressing an opinion today.

Mr. Snow: My right hon. Friend has drawn attention to inflammatory articles in certain allegedly responsible medical journals. But the South-East Metropolitan Hospital Board have, I understand, put consultants on a day-to-day basis. Would it not be more desirable, bearing in mind the dignity and importance of those appointments, to put the whole question of reducing the total number on a phased basis?

Mr. Bevan: The whole point is that this is to be discussed by the regional hospital boards, and we are hoping to receive their observations in the beginning of the year. Let me say at once that no one is anxious to do any injustice to the registrars concerned, but hon. Members must concern themselves also with the welfare of the people as a whole and must not only be concerned about individuals.
I said that before this circular was issued a full explanation of the position was sent on 6th July to the joint committee of consultants and specialists, together with statistical information. The draft of the circular was discussed with their representatives on two occasions. The need for action was recognised by the profession, but they did not agree on the exact form it should take, which is not unusual. The reason for the circular is that inquiry showed that the number of senior registrars and registrars in hospitals had risen to nearly twice the number needed as trainees to produce the specialists likely to be required each year.


The proposed number of trainee posts has been related to an annual demand of 150. The actual number needed to replace the wastage only is not likely to be more than 100 in any of the next five years. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Hendon, South, who said that we were stabilising the number of specialist posts. We are increasing them.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree with the figure of 30, which was given by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Bevan: I am agreeing with the figure which I have given, not the figure given by anyone else. The balance will be available for new posts in the hospital services as well as, of course, for posts overseas in other services. The hon. Member for Hendon, South said in the course of his speech that he thought it was extremely unwise—I forget the actual language he used so I will put it in those words—psychologically unwise, to have suggested that there were posts in the colonial services and the Services. Why? I have never heard a more astonishing observation. Here are a number of doctors who have been trained as registrars in the hospitals. They are told that it is extremely unlikely that there will be specialist posts for them. In the circular in which we are informing them that they ought not to spend more time on that work, we say that there are a number of posts available for them. Of course there are also G.P. posts.
What is wrong in advising people that there are available posts in the colonial services? It was only recently, as the hon. Member for Hendon, South will recall, because he was a Member of the Committee upstairs, that with the consent of Parliament I made it possible to make superannuation benefits mobile between the colonial medical services and the National Health Service at home. In other words, we want to encourage doctors to staff the colonial medical services. What is wrong in saying that posts are available there? In fact, as the hon. Member knows very well, one of the obstacles to the staffing of the colonial medical services was that those who went could not carry with them their superannuation benefit. We need more doctors in the colonial medical services, not only for the sake of administration itself and the welfare of colonial peoples,

but because we now need a much wider clinical field for the training of our doctors. In fact, as has been made obvious on several occasions, because of our medical success many of the endemic diseases with which our people were familiar no longer occur, and unless the medical profession can have experience in other fields they will have no knowledge about them. So far from it being a naughty thing to do, I should have thought it something which is highly desirable to do.
What is the context in which we offer this information? It is "You are not likely to get as many consultant jobs as this, but we can inform you where you can get desirable posts." We say that there are vacancies in the Services. The party opposite have always been reproaching us for not having done something about the Services long ago. Since when do they say that there is something psychologically wrong in doing this, that there is something wrong with the Services. I think that condemnation is not called for.

Mr. Linstead: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman wants an answer to that question. If he does, it is that registrars, according to the Ministry of Health's own conditions for their appointment, stated in writing, have assumed that they have a four years' course appointment before them and have made all their domestic arrangements accordingly.

Mr. Bevan: Nothing of the kind. Their appointments are reviewed from year to year to see if they are making the grade. There is no justification whatever for the hon. Member's assertion.

Mr. Linstead: May I read out the words of the circular?

Mr. Bevan: That does not invalidate what I am saying, that every year the progress of the registrar is reviewed.
There have been several criticisms of the circular. It is said that it does not allow for increasing the number of specialist posts. I have answered that: it does allow for that. But obviously it is not wise to enlarge the number of specialist posts until we have the hospitals in which we can find them work to do. One has to be related to the other. Let me give one or two figures to show the extent to which this problem has


occurred. In total, the number of trainees is nearly 3,000; in 1938 it was not more than 750–3,000 as against 750. Even the proposed new total of 1,700 represents a figure nearly two and a half times more than it was pre-war.

Dr. Hill: Does that figure of 750 include all the categories—resident surgical officer, resident medical officer and others—which have been re-named registrar?

Mr. Bevan: In fact, it is those who were considered to be training for specialist posts. That is the comparable figure. I am setting these figures against the analogous classes of persons pre-war. The new figure we suggest is two and a half times the pre-war figure. There can be no complaint there. In one hospital in London, which is a representative teaching hospital, the number of in-patients in 1949 was down by one-quarter compared with 1938. The number of out-patients was up by one-sixth, and the number of registrars was two and a half times as great. At another hospital the number of in-patients in 1949 was up by one-seventh, the number of out-patients was up by one-half, and there were three times the number of registrars compared with 1938.
Obviously there is a case for action on these lines. In some instances we hope that it will be possible to get selected general practitioners to do some of the work in the hospitals. It has been my desire, and I have expressed it on more than one occasion, that the general practitioner should be more closely associated with hospital work than he has been in the past. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this, and there has been a good deal of resistance. Let me say at once that the resistance quite often comes from inside the medical profession. It must not be assumed that complete harmony exists between the specialists and the general practitioners.
On the contrary, there is very often a considerable amount of friction, as members of management committees and regional boards well know. When they have tried to arrange that general practitioners should have access to hospitals, the difficulty has sometimes been with the consultants concerned. We are anxious to ensure that, where we

require new bodies, some of the new bodies shall be provided by part-time work by the general practitioners in the area.
I apologise to the House for speaking at such length on this matter. I know that hon. Members wants to get on to other debates, but I was anxious to make the position clear.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, I am sure he will agree that we have not been able completely to probe this matter this afternoon. I should like to say that we will take the earliest opportunity of having a more extended discussion on it.

Mr. Bevan: As fat as I am concerned, the more extended the discussion is, the better it will please me. I am most anxious that there should be no misunderstanding about the position. The hospital boards have been asked to consider proposals for carrying out the circular by 1st January. The suggested number for each region must be divided as between teaching and non-teaching hospitals and as between different specialities. I emphasise the words "different specialities," because it is essential, in these days when there is a tendency to proliferate specialities, that some of the more substantial specialities shall get an adequate number of registrars. Some of the new ones have too many registrars and some of the older ones have not enough.

Dr. Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman invite regional hospital boards to comment on the new establishments?

Mr. Bevan: Certainly. The regional hospital boards can make any observations they wish on the matter, and I shall be delighted to receive them.
I conclude by saying that the main purpose of the circular is to enable one very simple thing to be done, and that is to try in future to have sufficient doctors to do the normal work of the hospital and then to have an identifiable number of persons as registrars who are training to be consultants. In the past these categories have been blurred. The necessary general hospital work of assistant consultants has been performed by persons who at the same time were training to be consultants. It is because of


this that there has been a tendency to enlarge the category of registrars.
The number of registrars is always tentatively in excess of the number who at any time can become consultants. By relating the number of registrars to the actual possibilities of consultation posts, we clarify the whole position, at the same time keeping in mind the needs of the hospitals by appointing senior medical officers, assistant medical officers, clinicians and, in some cases, part-time general practitioners in order to carry out the general hospital work. Thus it will be very much clearer in future than it has been in the past and, so far from this being a subject which causes annoyance and dismay, I am certain that it will be in the interests of all concerned.

GRANGEMOUTH DOCKS

2.57 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: We are a little behind time with our programme of debates on the Adjournment, and I think that it will be possible to make up a little of that time on this topic. I hope to be brief. I wish to raise a constituency matter, though I should like to point out that I find, probably in common with most hon. Members, that whenever one begins to examine what appears to be a constituency problem, one finds oneself examining what turns out to be a small segment of a national problem. It is in the wider national sense that I ask the Minister of Transport some questions about the docks in my constituency.
I suggest that the equipment of the docks of the nation, not only those of Grangemouth, might well have been given greater priority in recent years. The reconstruction of ports on the Continent has been given high priority in many cases, and there is now some contrast in efficiency between some of our own ports and certain ports in other countries. When one remembers how important a link in the chain, not only of transport but of industry in general, is the work of the docks, one is bound to regret the fact that we are not working at top efficiency.
We have had two Reports in the last couple of years—the working party's report on the turnround of shipping and

the report issued this year on increased mechanisation in the docks—both of which have stressed the fact that there is a great deal of opportunity for further improvements in this matter. The first of these reports asks the Minister to prepare a programme of train requirements for the docks of the nation, and the second points out that there is a very wide field for mechanisation in the docks. I want to remind the Minister that, when one mechanises or in any way modernises work in the docks, one is doing the same sort of improvement to some of our great industries. We realise, for example, that the unloading of iron ore or steel scrap is a part of the chain of activities which ends in the coupling shops of Sheffield and the motor plants of Birmingham, and one begins to realise how necessary it is for bringing the working of our docks up to the highest standard of efficiency.
I confess to some feeling of disappointment that we have not been able to give greater priority to meeting this need in the years since the war. In Grangemouth itself we have docks of some importance. Grangemouth is the second port in Scotland in volume of traffic, being second only to Glasgow. In the Forth River estuary, where Grangemouth is situated, the other major port is Leith, but it is sharply differentiated from it in the nature of the work which it does. Grangemouth is very definitely a port dealing with bulk cargoes, ore, timber, scrap and cement, and cargoes of that sort, whereas Leith deals with food supplies, grain and that kind of thing.
The hinterland of Grangemouth is of great importance because within a short rail haul of Grangemouth docks there lies a great proportion, in fact, almost the whole, of the Scottish industrial region. Grangemouth also has a natural geographical advantage as a port for the importation of Scandinavian and Baltic timber and Swedish ore. It is equipped for the handling of bulk cargoes, but part of my submission is that it should be better equipped. It has an excellent rail service, every berth is actually supplied by rail, and its workers are by general agreement managing to do a good job without any particularly good equipment.
I want to ask the Minister what is his outlook about the future of Grangemouth as a port. I have been told from other sources that there is not enough traffic


passing through Grangemouth to warrant a high capital expenditure. Apart from other cargoes, Grangemouth has one of the oil refineries which, I understand, form the subject next to be discussed this afternoon. I understand that the hon. Member who is to raise it will talk about Fawley. Apart altogether from oil cargoes, its annual handling of trade is of the order of two million tons, which is a considerable amount if we compare it, for instance, with the immense port of Glasgow of the size of which it represents about one-third. That fact indicates that Grangemouth is a fairly substantial port, doing a considerable volume of work.
Furthermore, some elements in the imports of Grangemouth can be counted upon as reasonably certain. So long as we are importing timber, Grangemouth is the port to which Scandinavian timber can come. So long as we are importing iron ore, so long as we have an iron and steel industry, then presumably Grangemouth is the natural port for Swedish ores and is very convenient also for North African ores. I should like to ask the Minister whether his outlook involves the acceptance of the idea that Grangemouth will in future be used to the full. The British Transport Commission recently had under review the river and ports of the Forth. I do not presume that, from that immediate and quick review, there will be any official conclusion available at this stage, but if my right hon. Friend has any information to give as a result of that or other investigations, I should be glad to hear it, and I think the House would be glad to hear it, too.
The present equipment of Grangemouth docks—and I am concerned only with equipment for heavy duty—is as follows. Its present heavy duty crane capacity is simply one 40-ton crane and two nine-tonners. That one 40-ton crane is used, for example, by the boat which has been taking regular cargoes of steel plates from Motherwell to Canada since last summer, and if that boat is at the bottom of the crane the others simply have to wait. The result is a slow turn-round of shipping. The two nine-ton cranes were originally seven-ton cranes which have been converted. They are quite commonly and casually described in the ports as cripples, for they are not able to stand up to long work.
When we turn to the lack of modern equipment, we begin to realise that we are placing a handicap upon many of our industries. If anyone stands, as I have stood, on the deck of a boat in these docks, watching a couple of men standing down in the hold with their feet sinking in a mass of horseshoes, bicycle chains and iron bars which make up scrap, picking up these bits and throwing them into the cradle of the crane, he will realise that this is the 20th-century method not only of unloading a ship but of conducting one very important process in our great national iron and steel industry, and he will find it a sobering thought. I suggest that there is a strong case for improving and modernising the equipment of such a port as this.
The proposal which has been made—and I think it is to a certain extent an agreed proposal—is the introduction of one heavy duty berth consisting of four 10-ton electric cranes with grapples which could be used for the type of bulk cargo with which Grangemouth has to deal. For the sake of brevity I shall not quote the paragraph just now, but I would draw the Minister's attention to the remarks of the working party on the turn-round of shipping, as shown on page 8 of their report, in which they point out that the loss in connection with iron ore traffic through inefficient handling in the docks has been serious and consistent—I think that is the phrase—so serious and so consistent that it calls for an inquiry into the whole matter.
In the last 24 months I have taken this matter up more or less continuously. First of all, I had communications with my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Scotland and with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who used to assist the Minister of Transport and is now at the Admiralty. I have had communications with Lord Hurcomb, Chairman of the Transport Commission, and Sir Reginald Hill, of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. So far, it has mainly been a matter of refusals to agree the programme of improvements suggested. Recently, however, we have had the reports of these two committees—the working party and the committee on the mechanisation of ports—and at the beginning of this year we had the


passing of the docks to the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive; and, perhaps more important than all of these, we have had the progress of the oil refinery reaching a stage where it is nearly completed and where the desirability of a new oil berth is becoming clear.
I understand that, as a result perhaps of these developments, there is some possibility of a new attitude, and that there is now some reasonable hope that the programme suggested, or something similar to it, will be approved. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will be able to say so, and if I have had some doubts about the speed or priority given to work on the docks so far, I certainly consider the Minister to be a reasonably minded man and I hope that he will agree that the case that has been put up is a reasonable one.
I want to make this one qualifying observation in conclusion, and to stress what I said at the beginning—that I put this case as part of a national case. I would not like the Minister to think that I am arguing that he ought to equip the Port of Grangemouth against better claims from elsewhere. What I am hoping is that he will find that as part of the economic effort, it is reasonable and desirable to go ahead at some fairly early date with modernising and re-equipping the Port of Grangemouth to some extent.

3.12 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson), both in the opening sentences of his case and in his concluding remarks, was broadminded enough to link the special problem of Grangemouth with the responsibilities that, naturally, I have towards the ports of this country as a whole.
I should like to emphasise at once that not only I, but people generally in this country, appreciate the importance of our ports, because they are the terminal points in our immense import and export trade without which this country would be unable to maintain its present standards. My hon. Friend's remarks have enabled me to deal first with the problem of the investment programme. He will appreciate that, just as within a Department

like my own there is responsibility not only towards the ports but towards other aspects of transport, like the railways and the roads, and the investment programme has to be balanced within the Department between equally important competing claims, so the Government as a whole must balance the investment programme between many competing interests when they are determining the amount of capital expenditure that can be permitted both on overtaking arrears of maintenance accumulated in many services during the war and new reconstruction projects to deal with modern requirements.
The problem in the ports in this country during the last five years has been largely one of overtaking arrears of maintenance and the repair of war damage. As that problem is overcome, one can look forward to more and more of the proportion of capital available being devoted to new construction programmes. According to the figures I have before me, it appears that there has been a slight decline in the tonnage handled at Grangemouth as compared with 1938, for instance. It is not a substantial decline. In some respects the Port of Grangemouth has suffered less in relation to its pre-war imports and exports than other ports in this country.
As he has indicated, I was very quickly aware, in view of the vast capital expenditure that we had to face, of the need for information on the ports and the functions they would have to perform. In view of the increased capital cost of shipping today, it becomes vitally important that shipping should be turned round as quickly as possible at our ports. Then, because of the changing character of cargoes, it is equally essential that in any capital expenditure we should provide for the most efficient mechanisation at our ports for handling those cargoes. The reports of the two committees to which my hon. Friend referred were exceedingly valuable. Many of the problems relating to specific points mentioned in the reports have been referred back to the dock and harbour authorities.
On the whole, I have found a general desire to co-operate with my Ministry in securing improvements, including Grangemouth Port which, as my hon. Friend is aware, is one of the ports which has been


passed to the British Transport Commission. One of the functions of the British Transport Commission is to carry out a review of the ports of this country, and, while such a review has been undertaken, it has not yet reached the stage of any particular action; further examination of the matter is required. My hon. Friend referred to the importance of Grangemouth as an oil refinery and port. Something like half of their tonnage consists of oil and, as everyone knows, that is a very important factor in the life of this country.
These matters are engaging the serious attention of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive and the British Transport Commission, and I can assure my hon. Friend that as soon as these negotiations are complete, it is their sincere and determined desire fully to equip Grangemouth to enable that port to carry out the tasks which it has already done in the past and will, I feel sure, be called upon to perform in the future.

OIL REFINERY, THE SOLENT

3.18 p.m.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I desire to raise today the matter of the proposed establishment of an oil refinery on the Solent coast, east of the Hamble River, and of the action of the Government in encouraging and supporting the Caltex Petroleum Company of the United States in its intention to establish a refinery in that area without the approval of, and even without consulting, the Hampshire County Council which, by Act of Parliament, is the local planning authority.
This project was first heard of in the spring of this year, and the Ministry at first requested, unofficially of course, the county planning committee to treat the matter, owing to its importance, as being confidential and to do nothing about it. Before long, however, information regarding the scheme began to leak out, and a strongly worded protest dated 19th June against this scheme was despatched on behalf of the county planning committee to the regional controller of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. The matter came before the county council at the end of July, when the council strongly endorsed the objections to the scheme already expressed in the

letter which I have mentioned from its planning committee.
In a letter dated 2nd August, the clerk of the council wrote to the Ministry as follows, and, with permission, I will read an extract from the letter:
It appeared to the county council that the decision to establish the oil refinery in this area had been taken before there had been any consultation whatever with the local planning authority and that the observations of the county council were sought only on the choice of two sites adjacent to one another. In view of this, the county council do not consider that an inquiry conducted by an officer of the Ministry would serve any useful purpose. They wish to represent to the Minister that a public inquiry should be held by some eminent person in whose impartiality both the county council and the public could have complete confidence. The county council would like to suggest that a High Court judge should be appointed.
To this letter, a reply sent by the deputy-secretary, a lady, and dated 19th August, was received from the Ministry, and, with permission, I will read extracts from it.
The suggestion that the Minister should appoint for this purpose a High Court judge is in the circumstances entirely inappropriate; and I am to say that should it be decided to order a local inquiry the Minister would in fact appoint one of his inspectors to hold it.… The inspectors of the Ministry through their experience are, in the Minister's judgment, better able to do this impartially and comprehensively than persons lacking this particular experience; and the Minister believes that both local planning authorities and the public have complete confidence in the conduct of inquiries held by his inspectors.
It goes on to say:
The county council's suggestion is presumably made because of the Minister's statement that His Majesty's Government have already approved the proposal to erect the refinery somewhere east of Southampton Water. This is a fact; and it cannot be altered by the experience and standing of the person holding any inquiry that may be found to he necessary into the siting of the refinery.…
As regards the portions of the letter which I have read, I would say that in Hampshire, at any rate, the local authorities certainly, and, in my opinion, the public also, have not full confidence in the conduct of inquiries held by inspectors of the Ministry, for these, however able, or in the case of a lady, however charming, are the servants of the Minister, and are bound to be biased in favour of the Minister's views. They are, in effect, in the position both of the judge and of the counsel for the Ministry. I would add that in Hampshire we do not subscribe to the doctrine that in all cases the "Gentle-


man in Whitehall" knows best. In most cases we think he knows less than we do.
The House will therefore note, I hope, the statement that "The Government have already approved the proposal to erect a refinery," and that "This is a fact." In other words, the decision had been taken without any inquiry or consultation with the local planning authority. It is perhaps not surprising that neither the tone nor the subject matter of the letter of 9th August proved agreeable to the county council and, therefore, a letter was written making it clear that their objection was primarily to the procedure followed in this case, which resulted in the Government approving of the proposal to erect an oil refinery in an agricultural and residential area, without any consultation whatsoever with the local planning authority upon which Parliament has conferred certain duties under the Town and Country Planning Act, passed as recently as 1947.
They therefore asked what justification there could be for adopting such a procedure, and said that they would welcome some assurance that it would not be regarded as a precedent in the future. To this letter an answer dated 30th October was received, saying
It is obviously desirable to give the fullest consideration to the views of the local planning authority and for this reason the Minister has decided that a public local inquiry should be held.
It is all very well to say that, when a decision has been taken after omitting carefully to find out what the local opinion was, or what was the opinion of the county council. In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the correspondence, the county council, at a meeting at the end of November, passed a resolution reaffirming their opposition to the proposal, and asking the Members of Parliament for the county to consider the best method of raising this matter in the House of Commons. It is in consequence of that resolution that I and my hon. Friends are raising this matter.
I have only today received from the county council a copy of a further letter from the Minister regarding the county council's resolution to which I have just referred. It states:
There are exceptional cases where the broad location of the project is determined by

considerations of national policy, and this refinery project is such a case. The conclusion was reached that, whatever the local difficulties, the refinery would have to find a site somewhere on the eastern side of Southampton Water. In the circumstances, the Minister thought it right to say so right away.
That, again, is a clear confession that they entirely disregarded the existence, powers and duties, of the local planning authority. The letter again declined to appoint an eminent and independent person to conduct an inquiry.
It may be asked what is the motive for jumping at this proposal, as the Government have done, and for trying to push it through over the heads of the local planning authority. There is no doubt that the motive is purely and simply dollars. Desirable though it is to bring dollars to this country, they will come to this country equally well if the refinery is located in a more suitable and safer place than the shores of the Solent. Another reason may be that it is hoped from this scheme to provide employment. It means that the refinery will provide labour for some 2,500 men, of whom 500 will be key men who, I am informed, will be mostly imported from America. Probably half the remainder will have to be brought in from districts far away from Southampton.
On the other hand, the Hamble river alone, with its yachting anchorage and 12 ship and boat-yards, will be ruined, and probably at least 2,000 men or possibly more thrown out of work. There will not be very much advantage from that, apart from the damage to agriculture and horticulture, and apart from the fact that Southampton was a closed port for a great part of the war and will be very liable again to be a closed port in the event of another war. If another war were to occur, what would happen to the oil refinery?
I will now briefly mention some of the objections to the scheme. In our submission, it will have ill-effects on shipbuilding and yachting in the Hamble river, on flying and air service training, on navigation, and particularly on the School of Navigation, which is a national establishment supported from public funds as well as by the local ratepayers, on agriculture and market gardens, on amenities generally, both for residents and visitors, from pollution by oil of air, water and


beaches. My hon. Friend will deal with all these in some detail.
For my part, I will say a word on the defence aspect of the matter. Can it be wise to site this refinery one mile from the Fawley refinery, in a target area which, if this scheme goes through, will include two oil refineries and three oil storage plants? Think of the possibilities of fire in case of any of these being hit. Besides aerodromes, there are a flying-boat base, a school of navigation, an aircraft factory, and the great ports of Portsmouth and Southampton flanking it at either end. The whole situation is one which presents a target, I would say, beyond the wildest dreams of a hostile bomber.
I wonder whether the naval, military and air authorities have been consulted; I do not mean the civilian authorities, but the considered opinion of the general staffs. It is hard to believe that they have been, and I trust that the Minister will think again, and think very many times, before he allows this scheme to be put into effect.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: We must consider the intention to establish an oil refinery somewhere in the neighbourhood of Hamble, in addition to the oil refinery which already exists at Fawley, in relation to the whole well-being of the national economy. These two oil refineries will, when in full production, save the country hundreds of thousands of dollars every week. The other day we welcomed the fact that we should now be able to dispense with Marshall Aid, but it was not said that we should dispense with Marshall Aid indefinitely. Marshall Aid is suspended, and it may be that we shall have to ask for it to be resumed in the not-too-distant future if our balance of payments situation does not continue to be as satisfactory as it is now.
The two oil refineries—the one it is proposed to establish at Hamble and the existing refinery at Fawley—will help us materially to maintain a satisfactory balance of payments situation. They will be very useful indeed to the national economy as a whole, and there will have to be extremely valid reasons for objecting to them before we can agree not to build the refinery proposed in the neighbourhood of Hamble. The hon.

and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) stated one or two objections which are in the minds of the residents in the locality. A number of other objections have appeared in the local Press, in reports of meetings reported by the "Southern Daily Echo"; and it is with those objections that I wish to deal as rapidly as possible.
The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield said that the establishment of this refinery would ruin yachting in the Hamble river. He did not adduce a vestige of proof to show that it would materially affect yachting or boat-building in the Hamble river.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I said yachting and ship-building, which is a very different matter from yachting only. Also, in giving the list of those objections, I said particularly that they would be dealt with in detail by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett), if he is fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.

Mr. Morley: I shall await the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Gosport and Fareham (Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett), but so far I have seen not a particle of valid evidence adduced to show that the effect of erecting this oil refinery would be to injure yachting or ship-building in the river Hamble. Even if it does interfere with pleasure yachting to a certain extent, surely we are not going to jeopardise the whole national economy in order to satisfy a few people who do some weekend pleasure yachting.

Sir Herbert Williams: The Attorney-General, for instance.

Mr. Morley: The Attorney-General, or anybody else. Objection has been made that the erection of this oil refinery would pollute Southampton Water with oil. At the Fawley oil refinery there are a number of observers who keep a careful watch over every patch of oil that appears in Southampton Water in the neighbourhood of the refinery. When any patch of oil is observed, it is immediately examined and analysed. It has been found as a result of this analysis that the oil that has been found in Southampton Water has been black oil, not oil which


could have come from the refinery. It has been oil which has come from various oil-burning vessels, which are in the habit of using Southampton Water. At a recent meeting in Fareham, which was held in order to consider this question, an engineer said:
It is almost impossible to throw even a bucket of dirty oil into the water without getting nabbed. Every captain with a quantity he wants to get rid of throws it into a lighter. As a matter of fact, no captain of an oil tanker is allowed to empty bilge oil anywhere except in the open sea.
There is no oil coming from the oil refinery on Southampton Water. There will be no pollution of Southampton Water from the proposed new refinery in the neighbourhood of Hamble.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that this oil refinery will have a very bad effect upon our agriculture. That aspect of the case has been very closely examined, and we have had a statement by the Provincial Land Commissioner to the effect that the oil refinery had no deleterious influence whatever upon the land round about its area. Experience in the United States has also shown that an oil refinery has not a bad effect upon agriculture. I know it was stated at one meeting held in the district that there was oil film upon the crops and soft fruits in the district as a result of the operation of the oil refinery. The public relations officer of the oil refinery, in company with other local ladies and gentlemen in the neighbourhood of Fareham, made an inspection, and they found not a single trace of any film oil upon any standing crops or upon the soft fruits at all.
As to the pollution of Southampton Water by oil or interference by the emission of oil film with agriculture in the district, there is no evidence to show that the erection of this refinery will have any deleterious effect upon Southampton Water or upon agriculture within the neighbourhood. Those have been the chief objections which have been urged against the erection of this oil refinery.
It is by no means a majority of the people of Fareham who are opposed to the erection of this oil refinery somewhere within their locality. In the main it is the property owners in the district who are opposed to the erection of this oil refinery because they feel, with what

truth I know not, that the erection of the refinery may lessen the value of their property in the future. In fact, they appear to put the value of their property over and beyond the needs of the national economy. The organised working class in the Fareham district are in favour of the erection of this refinery. The Fareham Trades Council have declared in favour of it, and the hon. and gallant Member for Gosport and Fareham (Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett) knows that very well, because he has had correspondence with them.
So far as the organised working class in Southampton are concerned, we are anxious that the refinery should be proceeded with as quickly as possible. In the past we have depended too much for most of our employment upon one industry—shipbuilding and ship repairing. As all hon. Members know, employment in that industry, even in the best of times, is very much subject to seasonal fluctuations. Had the refinery not been erected last year, we should have had a considerable increase in unemployment in Southampton during 1950, and it is feared that towards the spring of next year, when the winter lay-ups have been concluded, there may be some increase in unemployment.
The erection of this refinery, like that at Hamble, will provide employment for a great many people who might otherwise be faced with periods of unemployment when there is slackness in shipbuilding and ship repairing. For this reason, the organised working people in Southampton are anxious that the refinery should be proceeded with. I imagine that not only in Southampton and in Fareham, but in Portsmouth, where in the recent past there has been considerable unemployment, there are many people who are anxious that this alternative means of employment should be proceeded with.
For all those reasons, because these two refineries are necessary in the national interest and will save millions of dollars each year, and because they will help to keep employment stable and diversified within the area in which they are situated. I hope that the Minister will proceed with the project as rapidly as possible. There is not a great deal in the argument that the refinery will be situated in a target area or that two refineries will be located


in the same target area. Even without these refineries, Southampton is a target area and in the last war suffered very heavy destruction. The addition of one more refinery will not make it very much more of a target area than it is at present. The outlook for Southampton is that by the wisdom of this Government, war will be avoided.
Nor is there any substance in the argument of oil pollution or damage to agriculture, yachting and yacht building. There is, however, a great deal to be said, from the viewpoint of the national economy and full employment, for proceeding with the erection of the refinery, which I hope will be undertaken as early as possible.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: In the early part of his speech, the hon. Member raised what seemed to me an extremely important point, that the refinery might be a method of delaying the next appeal for Marshall Aid. We on this side are in difficulty in not knowing who speaks for the Government. Do the Government regard Marshall Aid as a sort of perennial Santa Claus gift for which from time to time we appeal? The Minister should tell us whether we have yet finished with Marshall Aid or are to keep on with it.

Mr. Morley: I said that Marshall Aid had been suspended and we hope we shall never have to have recourse to it in the future, but these two refineries would help us in the future.

3.45 p.m.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: I have taken some points made by the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) and he has rather scouted many of the objections raised by various sections of the population. He has said that the yachting business will not be affected, but I can hardly believe that a weekly turnover of 30 tankers will not only fill up the navigable waters, but will also foul them more than is being done at present. If the property owners are against the proposal, why is it that a great deal of speculation has been going on in the district already? If the fumes would not do any harm, why does the schedule of the construction of the refinery say that there will be a quarter of a mile area uninhabitable around it?
I deplore the secrecy about this whole matter. It has two aspects, not necessarily party aspects, a national and a local one. We must be grateful to the Caltex Company for getting us dollars and we must never reject the coming of this refinery to this country; I suggest that this is a national point from which I have never swerved. I only doubt, on local grounds, whether this is the best site which could have been chosen. People may find employment on the building of the refinery but as they will be building labourers we should hope they would already be employed elsewhere, even under this Government, building houses.
As to the question of the boat builders who may be thrown out of employment, we must be allowed to judge of the merits of that argument. The Navigation School is an important factor and it should never be displaced because it may never be possible to establish it anywhere else. As to shipping, I have reason to believe that the big shipping companies may find the navigable channel so obstructed that it may jeopardise the use of Southampton as a major port. If we are to have a major port at the head of Southampton Water thrown out of action by a minor port at the mouth of Southampton Water, I feel that what would be gained on the swings, would be more than lost on the roundabouts.
The strategic point is absolutely paramount. We already have one huge refinery, one very large depot and four aircraft factories within half a mile radius. This is insane planning from every point of view and I would suggest, with all respect, that the evasive answers given by the Minister of Defence to my questions on the subject suggest that there is something to hide. I should like an answer about this, and it may be that the Minister who is to reply will give an answer in terms of defence. That is not a problem for local people to raise, and they cannot raise it at a local inquiry, but it is a matter for hon. Members.
Why is the refinery to be built at Southampton when Sheerness and Canvey Island have facilities for it? Why is it to be at Southampton if it is not to secure the last cent of profit? I think this refinery must come to England, but, in the same way as we may all think a bull is an excellent farm animal it is not at


its best in a china shop. We want this refinery, but I cannot see why it should necessarily be on Southampton Water, unless we have the clear results of a public inquiry to show that it should be there and nowhere else.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I entirely agree with many of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley). We do require a new industry in England in oil refining to save dollars. The hon. Member dealt with some cogency with some of the arguments advanced against the siting of this particular refinery at Southampton, but it seemed to me, that he dealt in the most summary and lighthearted way with the defence argument, which to my mind is a decisive matter.
I remember how in the war I was once asked by the Ministry of Supply to provide 500 Italian prisoners for work at Scunthorpe—I think it was Scunthorpe—and I found them, but there was nowhere for them to live. So I arranged for  camp to be built for them. The Ministry of Supply said that the security officers had not been consulted on the matter. I said that they would be consulted at once, and when they were consulted, they said, "This camp cannot be built there for strategic reasons." I asked, "What strategic reasons?" These turned out to be that it was too near an important point of production—in fact, the very place where the Italian prisoners were required to work. That is carrying security much too far.
Could there be greater folly than to site more than half, I think very nearly two-thirds, of the total oil-refining capacity of the country in an area of about one square mile? That is really a decisive point. Everybody connected with Southampton would like to see employment there diversified. I do not wish to go into any other argument in this short intervention except to say that we should require a great deal of convincing that it is a sound plan to site nearly two-thirds—I have heard an even higher figure mentioned—of the oil-refining capacity of the country in a very vulnerable area of a square mile. That is the point on which we shall have to receive a great deal of reassurance from the Minister.

3.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Lindgren): The general tone of this debate has been very good indeed, and I appreciate the manner in which hon. Members have dealt with the matter. To sum the matter up, everybody agrees that we must have oil refineries in this country to save dollars and put ourselves more nearly on a basis of not requiring dollars for petroleum products. I also think that everyone will agree that refineries have to be sited in relation to the fact that tankers are required to bring the crude oil, and that they must have deep water and facilities which will enable those tankers to berth and discharge their cargo. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are always talking about efficiency in industry, and so forth, would, I think, also agree that it is in the interests of efficiency and economy that a refinery should be sited in relation to the area which its products are to serve.
It is no use having a refinery in the North of Scotland to serve the South of England. So, on the general basis—

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the port of Southampton was closed for three parts of the last war because it was such a serious bombing target? How does the hon. Gentleman think this refinery will serve that port if it is again a closed port, as is very likely, in the event of war?

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must remember that we live for peace and not for war.

Sir G. Jeffreys: The best way to preserve peace is to be prepared for war.

Mr. Lindgren: I am not arguing on that basis, but if war comes to this country—I shall deal with the defence aspect later—a totally different situation will arise. But we must organise the economy of this country and the lives of its people on the basis of peace. I should have thought that it would have been generally recognised that the function of Government is to enable people to live at as high a standard of life as possible, at peace with another, in their own country.

Sir G. Jeffreys: The first duty of the Government is to defend the country.

Mr. Lindgren: I really do not know whether we are dealing with this matter on the basis of siting of an industry or whether hon. Gentlemen opposite want it dealt with on the basis of defence.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Both.

Mr. Lindgren: If it is on the basis of defence then they have asked the wrong Minister to attend this debate and reply to it.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: The Minister of Defence will not answer.

Mr. Lindgren: I will deal with defence now. Hon. Members are not really so foolish as to believe that the siting of a concern or industry such as this would have been taken without full consultation with, and the approval of, those associated with the defence of the country.

Mr. Lyttelton: I hasten to add that I am so foolish as to suppose that to site two-thirds of the oil-refining capacity of the country in the area of a mile is a piece of strategic folly.

Mr. Lindgren: That may be the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, but it raises a question of defence and I am not here to deal with defence. The emphasis of hon. Gentlemen opposite has really been related to what they consider will be the depreciation of certain properties in the area. I can assure the House that the question of defence has been considered by the appropriate Ministries and they are satisfied.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Might I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is not only the properties which might be depreciated—I have already said that I very much doubt if they would be—but it is the people who would be totally depreciated if this place became subject to attack by atomic bombs or anything similar?

Mr. Lindgren: I assure the House that the question of defence has been considered by the Defence Ministry.
Having considered the factors to which I have already referred, the Government announced that the refinery will be sited somewhere on Southampton Water. The actual location of the site will be decided in conjunction with the Hampshire

County Council. If we get down to the rock bottom basis of this question, one of the problems of planning is that we must have an efficient Army, Navy and Air Force. Yet, the first time someone suggests putting a bombing range or a tank range in a constituency, the Member says that it should be put somewhere else. Everybody believes that we want more power stations, because we do not want power cuts; but no one wants a power station in his constituency or blocking the view from his house. Everybody agrees that we need aerodromes and airfields but everyone says that they should not he in his constituency or anywhere near him. That is the basis of the problem. Everyone says, "We agree, but we should have it somewhere else; put it in some area where somebody else will be inconvenienced." One cannot accept planning on that basis.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I know of local authorities who, unlike Hampshire, would like to have this in their area.

Mr. Lindgren: Those authorities may be at the top of a hill, and one cannot get a tanker up a hill.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Sheerness.

Mr. Lindgren: There are already refineries in existence in the Thames Estuary, and the question of defence also arises there. With all respect to Southampton, I would point out that London is a target also. It is not very far from London down the Thames to Purfleet, and there is the river to guide one all the way.

Mr. Drayson: Has the hon. Gentleman considered South Wales? Is that area ruled out for any reason?

Mr. Lindgren: There are refineries in South Wales. There are refineries all over the country. Surely, the basis of good planning is the correct location of national functions. It is on the basis of national requirement that this refinery has been located in this area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Wilkes), who is to initiate the next debate, has just informed me that he is prepared


to allow me to continue for a few minutes, and I am grateful to him.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with the point which I made as strongly as I could, about the procedure employed by his Ministry in dealing with the local planning authority.

Mr. Lindgren: I agree that is desirable and essential that, as soon as possible, local planning authorities should be brought into consultation on projects which are to be located in their areas. That was done.

It being Four o'Clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Mr. Lindgren: Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been emphasising the defence aspect more than anything else. There is a defence aspect, and, therefore, in the initial stages, they were informed, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman admitted, on a basis of secrecy, and they were asked not to noise it abroad. So far as the general location is concerned, it is obvious that, in regard to certain projects, the nation as a whole must decide within broad terms, and that was done in this case. After the broad terms of the location have been decided, there should be local consultation and decision in regard to its application, and, again, that will be done in this case. As soon as the actual location has been decided, planning permission will be applied for to the Hampshire County Council, and that authority will have the opportunity, as well as the firm concerned, if they like, to appeal to the Minister, if one side or the other does not agree with the decision of the county council.
I am sorry that I cannot deal with all the other points raised, but I want to say a word or two on the question of an appeal. I really do resent the suggestion that an inspector of the Ministry, because he receives his pay from the Ministry, is in fact biased in regard to his decisions by the Ministry. After all, hon. Gentlemen have asked for a High Court Judge. I am not over enthusiastic about the legal fraternity, but, equally, does not a High Court Judge receive his pay from the

State? In this House the other day we devoted our time to giving them better pensions, but they receive their money from the State, and so do these inspectors of the Ministry.

Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. Surely, it is improper to argue that judges are in any way subject to pressure because they receive their salaries from the State? They are protected persons.

Mr. Lindgren: I have admitted that, and I say that a judge is in that position, but, when we have gentlemen of professional integrity—surveyors, engineers, civil engineers, architects and the rest—is not their professional integrity—

Sir H. Williams: Further to that point or order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Lindgren: These gentlemen, highly qualified in their professions and fully competent to undertake these inquiries, are in no way affected by the source from whence their salary comes.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is it not a fact that they are part and parcel of the Ministry, which, eventually, they have to defend?

Mr. Lindgren: They have not got to defend anything. We are operating the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, under which we have applications for planning permission to the planning authority, and, if it is refused, the other side have the right to appeal. This appeal is to the Minister, who has to make the decision. That is what the Act of Parliament provides, and the function of the inspector is to hold the inquiry to ascertain local facts, views and opinions, and to submit those facts and those opinions to the Minister, who has to make the decision. I suggest that architects, surveyors and the rest, who do know something about town planning, are likely to be far more efficient in providing the Minister with the right information than is a High Court judge, who knows nothing at all about the question of town planning.
Here we are considering the question of the location of a particular industry, and we are not discussing anything else. The inquiry would be into whether it is


right or wrong, on the basis of the planning of national requirements, for a particular industry to be sited in a particular place. The decision for the project to go has been made, and it will go on. The question of siting is not really definitely decided at the present time. When that is decided there will be an application to the Hampshire County Council for planning permission and, in the event of either side not being satisfied, my right hon. Friend will give full facilities for the inquiry and his decision will be made in the light of the facts revealed at that inquiry.

SOLDIERS' GRATUITIES (DEPENDANTS)

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Wilkes: The question I wish to raise during the next few minutes is that of the non-payment of gratuities to the dependants of deceased soldiers. I must confess that I was very surprised when I learned, as a result of a case which arose in my own constituency, that if a soldier who has signed for a short-term engagement should die within only a few days or a few weeks of the completion of his term of service, not a penny of the gratuity which was offered to him as one of the inducements for him to sign on would go to his estate, to his widow or any other dependant. It is forfeit entirely to the State.
It is the general principle about which I am concerned. The Minister knows all the facts in the case which I am about to mention, which is of a constituent of mine who joined in December, 1946, on a three-years' short service engagement and died of natural causes in September, 1949. That is three months short of his engagement but, of that three months, some 48 days were due in various leaves, so that he was only five or six weeks short in effective service, although it would make no difference if he had been only five or six days short.
I wrote to the Minister and suggested that the need of the widow and dependants for the gratuity is more urgent than ever in view of the fact that the bread winner has been lost to the family. If the soldier had survived to the end of the three-year period he would have

received £100 gratuity. I pointed out that, indeed, the gratuity was more urgently needed than if the soldier had survived to complete his term of service.
I suggest that, as a matter of fairness, it would be much better if a proportion of the gratuity were paid to the dependants in all cases, depending upon the amount of the service completed. For example, if a man joined for three years and died after two years' service, his dependants should receive two-thirds of the gratuity. It seems to me that that is fair and reasonable, but the Ministry do not see eye to eye with me at all. I have had a reply from the Ministry as follows:
I have looked into the case, but I am, afraid I can only say that the Royal Warrant governing retired pay, pensions and gratuities, published in Army Order 18 of 1949, specifically provides that, if a soldier dies while serving on a short service engagement, a gratuity will not be admissible. I recognise that this may seem hard on a widow.
Thus, the hardship is admitted, and surely it is part of the Minister's duty to mitigate hardship, especially when it can be done at negligible expense, for the number of soldiers who die within a few days, weeks or months of completing their short service engagement must be very few indeed and the amount at stake must be very small. The Minister continues:
It must he remembered, however, that such a proviso"—
that is, that dependants do not get anything—
is a common feature of pensionary and other non-effective awards.
The analogy which the Minister attempts to draw with pensions and superannuation awards simply does not hold water for a moment, because pensions and superannuation awards are based on an actuarial basis whereas, I take it, the gratuity is not based upon any actuarial basis at all. Gratuities are simply something offered to soldiers or potential soldiers as an inducement to them to join the Service.
I suggest to the House that the fairest way of regarding these gratuities is to regard them as something offered to the soldier or his dependants in return for the soldier volunteering to place himself entirely at the disposal of the State for three years, five years, seven years, or whatever period it may be.
It seems a little hard on the family that merely because his service is cut short by a few weeks through no fault of his own his dependants should suffer and the State should profit thereby. I hope the Minister will be able to say today that, after considering the matter, he will adopt the very reasonable suggestion I make—that, in the event of a soldier dying within the period of his service, gratuity awards should be made to the soldier's nearest dependants based upon the actual proportion of the amount of service the soldier has served. I hope the Minister will be able to announce that this afternoon.

4.11 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I want to support the plea made for some reconsideration of the undoubted hardship that arises when a man serving under a short service engagement dies before the period of his service expires. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central (Mr. Wilkes) has pointed out, and as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in the letter to which reference has been made, I know that the legal position at the moment is that the next-of-kin of the man is not entitled to any portion of the gratuity whatsoever.
That is provided for in Army Order 18 of 1949. But if that Order is studied it provides an additional argument in favour of the plea put forward, because it points out quite clearly that if a man serving for a short service engagement:
is invalided or is compulsorily discharged otherwise than for misconduct or inefficiency, before completing the full period of his short service engagement, he will receive a gratuity proportionate to the portion of his short service engagement which he has, in fact, completed.
The second class of case in which a pro rata payment is made and to which I want to refer is this:
If he is discharged at his own request before completing the full period of his short service engagement, he may he granted at discretion a gratuity not exceeding the amount proportionate to the portion of his short service engagement which he has, in fact, completed, provided he has satisfactorily completed at least one year's service on that engagement.
The position now is that if a man is invalided out or compulsorily discharged because his services are no longer required, or discharged at his own request,

he gets that proportionate part of his gratuity to which he would be entitled if he had completed the full term of service. If a man is ill and knows he is dying and asks to be discharged no doubt the War Office will release him, and in those circumstances he would get the proportion of the gratuity to which he would be entitled under this Army Order. If he dies so quickly that he is unable to notify the authorities and have a medical examination and obtain his discharge, he gets no gratuity at all. That is completely indefensible, and I urge very much the need for consideration of the request that has been put forward.
It may be, and no doubt is the case that the number of people affected in any one year is comparatively small. Presumably that is why this matter has not been raised in the House. That is an additional reason why I think the Government could afford to be generous. After all, it is cheap economy to say that the Government should have the benefit of such a man's service by the proportion of service he has been able to do and get out of their liability altogether if he dies. At the same time, the Government are quite willing to pay a proportion of the gratuity if his service is terminated in any other way than by death through natural causes before his period of service expires.
I very much hope that my hon. Friend will give this matter his favourable consideration. I know it may involve an amendment of the Royal Warrant, but surely the Royal Warrant is not so sacrosanct a document that it cannot be altered or amended when a real case of injustice is brought to the notice of the War Office. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will find it possible to announce a reasonable concession in this case.

4.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): When my hon. Friend first drew my attention to the case in which he was interested, I gave it most earnest consideration, and I have since very carefully considered the general principle that is involved in this matter of payment of gratuities. We have to look, first of all, at the nature and purpose of the gratuity. It is payable both to men on short service engagements, as was this particular man, and to men serv-


ing on a normal Regular engagement which is, of course, for a much longer period of years.
I think that we may say that it has two purposes. It is partly one of the inducements to get a man to enter the Service at all, and it is partly to meet the problem that he faces when, at the end of his period of service, he returns to civilian life and when he may have to look round and consider what kind of employment he is best suited for. After a man has for a number of years been a Regular soldier, there is often a considerable problem of readjustment, and it is in great measure to meet that problem that the gratuity is provided as one of the benefits he can obtain if he becomes a Regular soldier either on a normal Regular engagement or on a short service one.
That explains the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) as to why, if a man terminates his services prematurely, owing, say, to ill health or some other reason satisfactory to the military authorities, we do, as he said, in those circumstances pay him a proportion of the gratuity, because the problem of his return to civilian life is there. We are in that way meeting one of the purposes for which the gratuity was established, and we should undoubtedly be doing him an injustice if, when the man was there with his personal problems to be solved, we did not pay him a proportion of the gratuity which he hoped to get when he joined the Service.

Mr. Wilkes: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but would not he agree that the need of the dependants becomes very much more urgent if the breadwinner soldier dies before the completion of his service?

Mr. Stewart: I will come to the point of the needs of dependants very shortly, but what I want to establish at the moment is that the fact raised by my hon. Friend, that we do give a proportion of the gratuity to the man himself when his service ends prematurely in certain circumstances, is not necessarily a logical ground for saying that we should adopt the steps urged by my hon. Friend. In that case the man himself, for whom the gratuity was intended is there to receive it.
That brings me to the central point of the argument which we must grasp. We must distinguish between the provision that is made for the man himself and the provision that is made for the dependants. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that the gratuity—and this is made very plain to a man the moment he enters the Service—is one of the benefits provided for him and not for his dependants. I do not think the word "injustice" can be used at all in this connection, because when a man joins the Service it is made very clear to him that the gratuity is not payable if his death occurs during service. There cannot be any question of injustice or of breach of faith here.
That leaves us with the point raised by my hon. Friend about the need of the dependants. Let us look at what provision is made, in the event of death, for a man's dependants. In the first place, if, of course, death is attributable to service, then there are the ordinary pension arrangements. I think that my hon. Friend is aware that in this particular case it was decided by the Minister of Pensions that death was attributable to service, and the widow is therefore in some measure provided for. So my hon. Friend's argument has shifted from this particular case.
I cannot quote a case in question, but we can imagine cases where death has occurred and was not, as it was in this case, attributable to service. It is worth while noticing that it cannot be charged against the Service Departments that they leave the widows and dependants uncared for if death is attributable to service. With regard to the death that is not attributable to service, it will be appreciated that serving soldiers and men from the other Services do fall within the ambit of the National Insurance Acts. Therefore, again, it is not as if the dependants will be left uncared for even if death is not attributable and a Service pension is not payable.
There are some classes of Service men to whose dependants a pension may be payable in case of non-attributable death for example, officers and warrant officers. Class 1, who have a certain number of years' service behind them. These pensions are subject to a test of need, but it is very generously drawn and the proportion excluded from getting them on this ground would be very slight.
I would suggest to my hon. Friends that if it were possible to do anything on the lines which they have in mind, they ought to consider whether the provision now made for the payment of pensions to the widows of Service men who died from non-attributable causes ought not to be extended beyond the present limits. That is at present under discussion. It would be a large and far-reaching scheme to adopt, and it is, of course, open to question whether the men in the Services themselves would on balance feel that it was desirable for them to contribute to such a scheme.
It seems that an extension of that kind might be desirable not only to meet the kind of case supposed for this argument but on various other grounds as well. I think that if it were done at all, that is the way to do it, and not by using the gratuity which is not intended for the dependants at all, and which is entirely bound up with the needs of the man himself.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the hon. Gentleman include the possibility, which is more than a possibility and is in fact a probability, that a man embarkes on a short Service engagement in the knowledge that he is going to be paid a gratuity because he wants the gratuity not for himself, but for the purpose of educating his children or providing some benefit for his family which he otherwise could not possibly provide?

Mr. Stewart: That is so, but the man knows when he enters the Service that the gratuity will not be payable to his dependants if he dies during that service. If, therefore, he has planned to use the gratuity in that manner, for his family, with his eyes open, taking a risk, he cannot necessarily claim that the Service Department must rescue his dependants from the difficulty if the risk which he has deliberately taken does not come off.
My hon. Friend said that if this concession were made, it would not cost very much. He knows how difficult it is for any Minister, and particularly one connected with the Service Departments, to refuse any proposal or concession relating to the dependants of employees of the State. He knows also, that this is not the only example of requests that may be made for the spending of public money,

and it is not, therefore, a sufficient argument to say that this particular one would not cost very much. Surely what one ought to consider is: Is there a case in justice for spending money in this particular way? Nor can we restrict the application of it quite as much as he suggests. There would be, of course, the application not only to the War Office but to the other Services. In some cases the provision for gratuity is very considerable indeed. There is a particular scheme in the Royal Air Force that would involve them in a good deal more expenditure on this side than the War Office.
My hon. Friend said that we ought to consider the case where death occurred within three months of the man completing service. As he knows, once we concede that, some successor will be speaking on an Adjournment debate on behalf of an ex-Service man who has died within three months and two days.

Mr. Wilkes: A much better plan would be to adopt the suggestion I have made, that a pro rata payment be paid in proportion to the amount of service.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend suggests that a pro rata payment should be paid, but—

Mr. Wilkes: I do not see why not. If a man joined up for three years with £100 as an inducement to serve, and he died within a month, then one thirty-sixth should be payable.

Mr. Stewart: It is made clear when the man joins that the sum is not payable if he dies during service—the intention is to help him when he returns to civilian life. Nor can I accept the view that we can regard pensions and gratuities as in entirely different categories in this respect. Exactly the same argument in regard to the hardship to dependants could be advanced where a man has died very near to entitlement to pension. The sum of money involved would be much more considerable. It would mean that the financing of the pension scheme would take on a different colour if such a proposition were adopted. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, except in so far as I am able to say that we are considering the possibility of meeting the needs of dependants by some provision of a pension scheme. I


can say nothing more definite about this at this stage.
In conclusion, I draw attention to one other point. The proposition is that a proportion of the credit should be paid to the man's dependants. In the case of a man with no dependant, the money would presumably be disposed of in accordance with the terms of his will to people who might not need it. It would be unreasonable to make such an arrangement.
I ask my hon. Friend to believe that we have considered this question very carefully. We feel that no injustice is

being done, and that in this case proper provision is being made for the dependants. I think we are right in preserving a distinction in principle between a gratuity which is part of the entitlement of the man himself, and such provision as may be made for his dependants.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Four o'Clock, till Tuesday, 23rd January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.